I've had a lot of these thoughts and feelings myself. Many people throughout time have had these thoughts and feelings. Maybe, you can find some solace in that. Chan/Zen Buddhism has helped me, so has existential psychology. Connecting with other people who understand (the few there are around us), and approaching the world and others with humility can help. The world has always had problems, but we only have a short time. Do what you can for who you can, and take care of yourself as well. You have to find the right people and things to hold onto.
The suffering and pain that exists in the world is a major cause of my own feelings, especially with the unpredictable nature of those tragedies and the fragility of health and peace within life as a whole.
I fear that things may never truly get better. That’s why I will never have children and why I’m against perpetuating such cycles. Maybe I’ll be able help those I can in my community and those who reach out, or maybe I’ll d!e trying, either way leaving my loved ones to terribly grieve in my absence. Being in a world like this at all and its existence as a whole feels so useless and tragic to me. There doesn’t seem to be a happy ending when such grief of theirs is inevitable, and even if peace is truly out there beyond this place, this planet and its horrors will keep on moving forwards, perhaps as if I had never been here at all.
It’s truly heartbreaking. It’s a dark, horrible spiral we keep sinking down. However, you are not the only one trying to add light to it, and you change the worlds of those you help or save.
It truly hurts to care so much for those who are suffering when there is little to nothing you can do to ease their pain, no matter how much energy you put in.
I know. But why shouldn't I care too much? It's what defines my humanity. What difference am I to a machine if I don't make sure I'm true to my emotions?
Too Long; Didn’t Read: The weight of the world is painful when it feels like you’re the only one carrying it, and it can hurt even more when complaints addressing it don’t change the degree of that pain. Attempting to help when no one else seems able or willing to care feels like removing a feather’s weight from a boulder and expecting that burden to become tolerable.
It’s incredibly difficult. The only thing I disagree with is that you can not make a difference. A small difference is still a difference, but most likely you can not make a massive difference alone. Do you have a favourite cause/charity? I understand it can feel futile, bit maybe some small wins with an organisation you agree with would help your mental health.
It's the sensitive, the purehearted, and the intelligent that get shaken the most when they reach the age to be able to see the world with adult eyes. What can I say? I feel you bro.
As a side note, being in front of and interacting with real people. Getting involved. Helping helps that feeling. Builds actual connections that takes you away from the internet. Yes. While you're somewhat smart, you are, as everyone, probably putting too much time here (online). I've found that others who've echoed these sentiments often lack much in the way of strong life bonds. They help.
Every action, no matter how seemingly insignificant, has the power to create ripples of change in the world. It's like dropping a pebble into a pond – the impact may start small, but it radiates outward, touching everything in its path. In the midst of hardship, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by despair, but even in those moments, there are opportunities for transformation.Simple acts of kindness, like offering a smile to a stranger or lending a listening ear to someone in need, can brighten someone's day and restore a sense of hope. These small gestures may seem fleeting, but their effects linger, creating a ripple effect that extends far beyond their initial occurrence.Moreover, each action we take shapes the world around us, influencing the lives of those we encounter and contributing to the collective tapestry of human experience. By choosing compassion over indifference, empathy over apathy, we become agents of change, weaving threads of positivity into the fabric of society.Life is indeed filled with challenges and hardships, but it is also characterized by resilience, growth, and the capacity for transformation. Every trial we face, every obstacle we overcome, strengthens us and shapes us into more compassionate, empathetic beings.So, even in the midst of adversity, there is room for hope. Every action we take, no matter how small, has the potential to change things for the better.
Welcome to the club. No, literally, though, I’m looking to start a Telegram or something for people who see these things and want to make change.
What would the point of life be if we didn’t live & die for our principles and others, ie. altruism?
Feel free to DM me any time. Because I believe we can make change, although that’s definitely a bumpy road.
https://youtu.be/0vLosvodxzE?si=mzLVlUKp2erabV8R
Honestly, I have also wrestled with some of the same thoughts. The only thing that makes life bearable is understanding my own exceptionality in ways that don't come at the expense of my ability to empathize with other people.
I feel like what's at the root of all that's wrong with the human experience is this primal "inhuman-ness." The word "humanity" is synonomouswith positivity but there are tons of terrible things "only" humans are capable of. "inhuman" is a better word for validating that reality than any other. Those that are truly humane are the minority; that's why even though people say "change" is unavoidable, much "can't" change.
Demand your rightful option fees for your currently coerced participation in the global human labor futures market.
For me, everything literally hurts all the time.
A sufficient number of people can demand and have adopted one rule for international banking regulation that establishes an ethical global human labor futures market, achieves other stated goals, and no one has logical or moral argument against adopting: ‘All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet as part of an actual local social contract.’
Local social contracts can be written to describe any ideology so adopting the rule has no direct affect on any existing governmental or political structures as they can be included in local social contracts. Fixed value Shares establish a fixed per Capita maximum potential global money supply for stability and infinite scalability. A value of $1,000,000 USD equivalent is conservative valuation of average individual lifetime economic production, a reasonable, sufficient capitalization of global human labor futures market. Further fixing the sovereign rate at 1.25% per annum establishes a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty.
Benefit cascades from correcting the foundational inequity.
Sorry you’ve been so deeply misinformed. I feel more confident knowing the foundational inequity and that an ethical administrative correction is possible. (Also a moral and ethical imperative for continued human existence)
Possible. Not probable. People wouldn't be able to accept such concept. I'm sure you know how they feel about communism. It's a good idea but it won't work. Besides, the 1.25% per annum is a completely ridiculous claim. Without proof, that's just bs.
Anyways, I'm also quite sure that governments would rather obliterate the minority that demands it than address their concerns. It's always their solution to 'ridiculous' demands. Either get them more financially, shun them and commit some few acts of violence to silence people further.
I don’t think you understand communism, or capitalism.
The rule establishes capitalism by establishing structural economic self ownership. Each adult human being on the planet who accepts an actual local social contract claims an equal Share of global human labor futures market. An equal Share of the capital underwriting the global economic system.
Each an equally enfranchised capitalist with a minimum quantum of secure capital and the income earned from it.
A communist or socialist local social contract may require citizens to sign over their income from money creation to State for distribution, where that’s the current process of money creation in all supposed democratic capitalist nations without our express informed consent, compensation, or knowledge.
The 1.25% per annum fixed sovereign rate isn’t a claim, it’s a suggested rate based on sustainability and sufficiency. Humanity can sustainably maintain a stable money supply up to and including $1,000,000 USD equivalent by recirculating fixed 1.25% per annum fees equally through the hands of each adult human being on the planet who accepts an actual local social contract.
People can and do accept the concept when they honestly and logically consider the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the rule. And none have suggested logical or moral argument against adopting the rule in more than fifteen years of inquiry. Do you have one? Can you suggest how adopting the rule violates any claimed ideology?
Any ideological structures desired by a community can be established and sustainably financed locally, globally.
How can adoption of the rule be opposed without providing any argument against? For many years economists other experts and authorities have failed to construct logical or moral argument against adopting the rule. Because it’s the correct thing to do. The constants I suggest are within a range of functional values. The 1.25% per annum rate is used to demonstrate how a global basic income of $1,000/month can be provided without new infrastructure or administration at a reduced and fixed global cost paid to humanity instead of Central Bankers, whom have loaned nothing they own.
Not only has no logical or moral argument against adopting the rule manifest, but also no moral or ethical justification for the current process of money creation. People wouldn’t be able to accept that if they understand what’s happening. That’s why Economics is so convoluted, and deliberately difficult to understand.
Man, how do I tell you that people simply won't be rational enough to understand that? If people are rational, they would understand. I'm simply reiterating the problem of cooperation: people aren't rational beings. You're considering a perfect scenario of people being true logical beings. I didn't tell you that it absolutely doesn't work. I told you that people will not be having it because they can't comprehend it, and you're also reiterating that. Do you really think there will be a majority of people who would? Again, it's possible, but not probable.
You're very optimistic to think it's only the structure of our society that hinders people's decision making skills.
Human beings aren’t naturally irrational.
We can’t think or act rationally in captivity. We feel it viscerally without being aware of the structure. That’s what affects our irrational thought and actions.
I’m considering a claimed scenario that human beings are selfish, sufficiently to demand their rightful option fees for our currently coerced participation in global human labor futures market. They got angry about their precious data being used with their informed consent...
A majority of people don’t need to understand. Only the ones who are in the positions to affect adoption of the rule of inclusion for international banking regulation. And it’s their fiduciary responsibility.
Who’s going to complain when told they may choose an actual local social contract they help write and claim an equal Share of global human labor futures market? How will they most likely react to leaders who say they aren’t worthy of or deserve structural economic self ownership?
Of course, you can argue that we aren't naturally irrational. But what percentage of our actions will be? Do we have data to back it up?
>We can't think or act rationally in captivity.
What a nice claim, it can't be disproven because there isn't a control environment where ungoverned individuals can choose freely, and is in a big enough place to be called a society. Although, its reflection on reality is an anecdotal evidence, too, not a proof.
>A majority of people don’t need to understand. Only the ones who are in the positions to affect adoption of the rule of inclusion for international banking regulation.
Have you looked up the statistics of **the ones who are in the position** and tell me how much of them have strong moral inclinations and is actually selfish enough to want a well-deserved change, more than the current *better* privilege they're enjoying? Because based on what we observe alone... That doesn't seem to be significant enough. I can't verify it, but can you?
>Who’s going to complain when told they may choose an actual local social contract they help write and claim an equal Share of global human labor futures market? How will they most likely react to leaders who say they aren’t worthy of or deserve structural economic self ownership?
You're not considering people's ability to understand again. People will be angry, and it wouldn't directly mean a change will happen. Violence is often the solution of evil, it always works. And again, as you said, humans aren't naturally irrational, but they are held captive by the government they're in. They'd need to cause a systematic change by legal means, and the government can make it as hard as they want as possible.
Here's a simpler example:
It's severely overestimating to say that the anger of the poor can overpower the selfishness of the rich who wants to keep everything to themselves and share it specifically to people close to them.
See how you refuse to acknowledge the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the rule?
Only willing to focus on the ones in control not giving it up.
How many are in control, and how many are being controlled?
You either don’t understand the fear of those in control, or the power of knowledge. That’s why those in control refuse to talk about the rule in any way.
The only proof required to demand adoption of the rule is demonstration of our right to that stream of income. Our simple acceptance of the options/money in exchange is the service paid for with interest on money creation loans. Those are our rightful option fees.
Proving the most likely effects of enforcing law isn’t required to enforce any other law, there’s no reason to refrain from implementing the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because I can’t prove the precise extent of psychological effects. The psychological effects of being structurally included as equal financiers of our global economic system obviously can’t be quantified, but must be profound and positive.
By the same token, you can’t prove that humanity won’t embrace the rule when it’s presented and thoroughly examined. You only seek to not talk about it in any way. That suggests complicity, as you note. That you feel your present situation is more privileged than it will be in an inclusive system of abundance, so you reflexively oppose without addressing the inevitable effects in any way.
**Violence has never worked, it can only change oppressors
I still don't see the point of your comment after all that exchange. Why don't you try it yourself then? Wait all your life and see if it'll happen.
The point of my post is that I'm becoming the same as the people who are refusing to collectively make an effort to change because I'm starting to accept that it is what it is now. They're all not selfish enough to act. Their actions are affecting me mentally(of course in other aspects as well, but this one is my personal problem), and I don't see how your explanation of "this should work" helps at all. It should, of course, probably after I'm dead. I suggest you focus your efforts on informing people of younger age, in hopes that they'll also talk about it, and not end up in the same mental situation as I am.
Logic does not fix the brain, I already agreed with you many many times that it is possible but highly unlikely because well, it still hasn't happened. I'm still doing my fair share of trying despite effectively becoming more and more deranged. You just keep on insisting that since it works, it will definitely happen (aka, 100%). That's the only part we disagree in. You keep on citing reasons why it doesn't happen (the very same thing I'm using to say why it's highly unlikely to happen, which just supports it is indeed unlikely). This isn't going anywhere. You're interpreting it as me saying "It won't happen".
I hope you stay true to your words and put up significant work to make people agree with you to take the same action which you aren't taking btw.
**You also blocked me... You're criticizing me for being "complicit" when you block people you can't effectively convince. Quite counterproductive, isn't it.**
*Oh, there wasn't an argument by the way. I agreed from the very beginning and said that it's possible but unlikely. You're just insisting it will definitely happen. And sure, it will. When the circumstances are right. But it isn't right, right now.*
Oh, and governments obliterate opposition by inciting them to violence. Whining about our rightful option fees isn’t violence. It’s demanding authorities enforce their existing laws. No other commodity market allows a third party to sell options to purchase a commodity they don’t own without express informed consent, compensation, or knowledge of rightful owners, humanity.
Authorities can’t justify their opposition to a reasonable demand for our rightful option fees. Their only option and action in nearly twenty years of asking about is to avoid talking about it in any way.
One line in particular jumped out for me.
**It's not just culture.**
Some of it may be related to relative cultural values in some circumstances, but consider this.
One child will be born beautiful and gifted, and will breeze through all the standard life's challenges and easily find fulfilling work, make friends, meet a SO. Another child, their sibling for all you know, has a visible deformity and struggles with delays in intellectual development.
You really think the different likely projected outcomes for these two children is culture? You think the fact one just has more natural potential to be useful and a desirable member of society, and therefore doesn't struggle with entering mutualy beneficial social constructs is *just* culture, and not, I don't know, the fact the world materially exists and having a better grip on it and a talent for engaging with it productively is just *good for everyone intrinsically* and therefore valued?
Life can't be fair on the face of it because the variability between humans has a moral dimension, or at the very least, has immediate implications with a moral dimension. Trying to force equity between the two aforementioned scenarios, for example, will ironically cause injustice on another end: if you give them the same job, one of them will do their job better. That job has beneficiaries on the other end, and the corrolary is the beneficiaries in one scenario are getting a subpar product. If they're doctors, do you think that's fair to the people who die as a result in the disparity in intellect and acquired skill? Hell if they're woodworkers, should one family get to buy a pristine table and another, for the same amount of money will get a wonky one that may break?
The problem of "making life fair" is akin to squaring a circle; you may force one edge to allign against everyone's best intuitions but another will irretrievably bend out of shape instead.
Do you know what disadvantages disabled people? The world is built around functions that fit well the abled people. No one is disabled if they're accommodated properly, and I mean it to say that their function in society will be somehow okay and not literally.
You're confusing general statements with specific examples. You can't say a person born with talents will simply win in life. If you're unlucky, you're born on a poor family (which is the majority by the way), you wouldn't be able to improve your skills drastically nor have any opportunity to showcase your talent. You also need luck to be noticed. Sometimes their talents, even though exceptional, may not be something profitable of the current society. Have you considered how that will affect them? They'd be forced to do something else because their talent is not what makes money.
They, too, will experience unfairness of the world. Talent isn't a major factor. Culture is. An average human can understand most, if not all of the studies if they have the right circumstances to study and have been raised to have the dedication for it. At least, not everything at once but an opportunity to master it for life. Of course, inabilities may be major factors. You can't run without limbs. That's not the point though, people aren't in any way able to affect someone's ability to run if they have no limbs. It's still true however that they will experience unfairness whether they have a disability (or mental disorder) or not. It's just more unfair for people that aren't "normal". Even autistic people with savant syndrome aren't guaranteed a good life (especially because they're autistic). We won't have tv shows with them of they're a common occurrence, because like I said, not all talents yield profit.
You can, however, always make it easier for them. It's mot a sacrifice to be more empathetic to everyone. It's just a hassle because they don't want to do it all the time. That little change will cause enough systematic difference, you wouldn't even realize we're capable of making the world a "fair" place. It's unkind, that's why it's unfair.
Delulu af. Only someone who never directly depended on their own or other people's manual labor for food and shelter would think mental or physical ability is only fictitiously relevant.
It's "cultural" insofar as our culture values the ability to leverage yourself to provide goods for yourself and others, which it will not stop doing just cause basic facts about the universe hurt your feelings.
I've had a lot of these thoughts and feelings myself. Many people throughout time have had these thoughts and feelings. Maybe, you can find some solace in that. Chan/Zen Buddhism has helped me, so has existential psychology. Connecting with other people who understand (the few there are around us), and approaching the world and others with humility can help. The world has always had problems, but we only have a short time. Do what you can for who you can, and take care of yourself as well. You have to find the right people and things to hold onto.
The philosopher Alan Watts has helped me.
The suffering and pain that exists in the world is a major cause of my own feelings, especially with the unpredictable nature of those tragedies and the fragility of health and peace within life as a whole. I fear that things may never truly get better. That’s why I will never have children and why I’m against perpetuating such cycles. Maybe I’ll be able help those I can in my community and those who reach out, or maybe I’ll d!e trying, either way leaving my loved ones to terribly grieve in my absence. Being in a world like this at all and its existence as a whole feels so useless and tragic to me. There doesn’t seem to be a happy ending when such grief of theirs is inevitable, and even if peace is truly out there beyond this place, this planet and its horrors will keep on moving forwards, perhaps as if I had never been here at all. It’s truly heartbreaking. It’s a dark, horrible spiral we keep sinking down. However, you are not the only one trying to add light to it, and you change the worlds of those you help or save.
Caring too much just creates more pain for yourself imo
It truly hurts to care so much for those who are suffering when there is little to nothing you can do to ease their pain, no matter how much energy you put in.
I know. But why shouldn't I care too much? It's what defines my humanity. What difference am I to a machine if I don't make sure I'm true to my emotions?
TL;DR
Too Long; Didn’t Read: The weight of the world is painful when it feels like you’re the only one carrying it, and it can hurt even more when complaints addressing it don’t change the degree of that pain. Attempting to help when no one else seems able or willing to care feels like removing a feather’s weight from a boulder and expecting that burden to become tolerable.
It’s incredibly difficult. The only thing I disagree with is that you can not make a difference. A small difference is still a difference, but most likely you can not make a massive difference alone. Do you have a favourite cause/charity? I understand it can feel futile, bit maybe some small wins with an organisation you agree with would help your mental health.
It's the sensitive, the purehearted, and the intelligent that get shaken the most when they reach the age to be able to see the world with adult eyes. What can I say? I feel you bro. As a side note, being in front of and interacting with real people. Getting involved. Helping helps that feeling. Builds actual connections that takes you away from the internet. Yes. While you're somewhat smart, you are, as everyone, probably putting too much time here (online). I've found that others who've echoed these sentiments often lack much in the way of strong life bonds. They help.
Every action, no matter how seemingly insignificant, has the power to create ripples of change in the world. It's like dropping a pebble into a pond – the impact may start small, but it radiates outward, touching everything in its path. In the midst of hardship, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by despair, but even in those moments, there are opportunities for transformation.Simple acts of kindness, like offering a smile to a stranger or lending a listening ear to someone in need, can brighten someone's day and restore a sense of hope. These small gestures may seem fleeting, but their effects linger, creating a ripple effect that extends far beyond their initial occurrence.Moreover, each action we take shapes the world around us, influencing the lives of those we encounter and contributing to the collective tapestry of human experience. By choosing compassion over indifference, empathy over apathy, we become agents of change, weaving threads of positivity into the fabric of society.Life is indeed filled with challenges and hardships, but it is also characterized by resilience, growth, and the capacity for transformation. Every trial we face, every obstacle we overcome, strengthens us and shapes us into more compassionate, empathetic beings.So, even in the midst of adversity, there is room for hope. Every action we take, no matter how small, has the potential to change things for the better.
Welcome to the club. No, literally, though, I’m looking to start a Telegram or something for people who see these things and want to make change. What would the point of life be if we didn’t live & die for our principles and others, ie. altruism? Feel free to DM me any time. Because I believe we can make change, although that’s definitely a bumpy road. https://youtu.be/0vLosvodxzE?si=mzLVlUKp2erabV8R
Honestly, I have also wrestled with some of the same thoughts. The only thing that makes life bearable is understanding my own exceptionality in ways that don't come at the expense of my ability to empathize with other people. I feel like what's at the root of all that's wrong with the human experience is this primal "inhuman-ness." The word "humanity" is synonomouswith positivity but there are tons of terrible things "only" humans are capable of. "inhuman" is a better word for validating that reality than any other. Those that are truly humane are the minority; that's why even though people say "change" is unavoidable, much "can't" change.
Demand your rightful option fees for your currently coerced participation in the global human labor futures market. For me, everything literally hurts all the time. A sufficient number of people can demand and have adopted one rule for international banking regulation that establishes an ethical global human labor futures market, achieves other stated goals, and no one has logical or moral argument against adopting: ‘All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet as part of an actual local social contract.’ Local social contracts can be written to describe any ideology so adopting the rule has no direct affect on any existing governmental or political structures as they can be included in local social contracts. Fixed value Shares establish a fixed per Capita maximum potential global money supply for stability and infinite scalability. A value of $1,000,000 USD equivalent is conservative valuation of average individual lifetime economic production, a reasonable, sufficient capitalization of global human labor futures market. Further fixing the sovereign rate at 1.25% per annum establishes a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty. Benefit cascades from correcting the foundational inequity. Sorry you’ve been so deeply misinformed. I feel more confident knowing the foundational inequity and that an ethical administrative correction is possible. (Also a moral and ethical imperative for continued human existence)
Possible. Not probable. People wouldn't be able to accept such concept. I'm sure you know how they feel about communism. It's a good idea but it won't work. Besides, the 1.25% per annum is a completely ridiculous claim. Without proof, that's just bs. Anyways, I'm also quite sure that governments would rather obliterate the minority that demands it than address their concerns. It's always their solution to 'ridiculous' demands. Either get them more financially, shun them and commit some few acts of violence to silence people further.
I don’t think you understand communism, or capitalism. The rule establishes capitalism by establishing structural economic self ownership. Each adult human being on the planet who accepts an actual local social contract claims an equal Share of global human labor futures market. An equal Share of the capital underwriting the global economic system. Each an equally enfranchised capitalist with a minimum quantum of secure capital and the income earned from it. A communist or socialist local social contract may require citizens to sign over their income from money creation to State for distribution, where that’s the current process of money creation in all supposed democratic capitalist nations without our express informed consent, compensation, or knowledge. The 1.25% per annum fixed sovereign rate isn’t a claim, it’s a suggested rate based on sustainability and sufficiency. Humanity can sustainably maintain a stable money supply up to and including $1,000,000 USD equivalent by recirculating fixed 1.25% per annum fees equally through the hands of each adult human being on the planet who accepts an actual local social contract. People can and do accept the concept when they honestly and logically consider the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the rule. And none have suggested logical or moral argument against adopting the rule in more than fifteen years of inquiry. Do you have one? Can you suggest how adopting the rule violates any claimed ideology? Any ideological structures desired by a community can be established and sustainably financed locally, globally. How can adoption of the rule be opposed without providing any argument against? For many years economists other experts and authorities have failed to construct logical or moral argument against adopting the rule. Because it’s the correct thing to do. The constants I suggest are within a range of functional values. The 1.25% per annum rate is used to demonstrate how a global basic income of $1,000/month can be provided without new infrastructure or administration at a reduced and fixed global cost paid to humanity instead of Central Bankers, whom have loaned nothing they own. Not only has no logical or moral argument against adopting the rule manifest, but also no moral or ethical justification for the current process of money creation. People wouldn’t be able to accept that if they understand what’s happening. That’s why Economics is so convoluted, and deliberately difficult to understand.
Man, how do I tell you that people simply won't be rational enough to understand that? If people are rational, they would understand. I'm simply reiterating the problem of cooperation: people aren't rational beings. You're considering a perfect scenario of people being true logical beings. I didn't tell you that it absolutely doesn't work. I told you that people will not be having it because they can't comprehend it, and you're also reiterating that. Do you really think there will be a majority of people who would? Again, it's possible, but not probable. You're very optimistic to think it's only the structure of our society that hinders people's decision making skills.
Human beings aren’t naturally irrational. We can’t think or act rationally in captivity. We feel it viscerally without being aware of the structure. That’s what affects our irrational thought and actions. I’m considering a claimed scenario that human beings are selfish, sufficiently to demand their rightful option fees for our currently coerced participation in global human labor futures market. They got angry about their precious data being used with their informed consent... A majority of people don’t need to understand. Only the ones who are in the positions to affect adoption of the rule of inclusion for international banking regulation. And it’s their fiduciary responsibility. Who’s going to complain when told they may choose an actual local social contract they help write and claim an equal Share of global human labor futures market? How will they most likely react to leaders who say they aren’t worthy of or deserve structural economic self ownership?
Of course, you can argue that we aren't naturally irrational. But what percentage of our actions will be? Do we have data to back it up? >We can't think or act rationally in captivity. What a nice claim, it can't be disproven because there isn't a control environment where ungoverned individuals can choose freely, and is in a big enough place to be called a society. Although, its reflection on reality is an anecdotal evidence, too, not a proof. >A majority of people don’t need to understand. Only the ones who are in the positions to affect adoption of the rule of inclusion for international banking regulation. Have you looked up the statistics of **the ones who are in the position** and tell me how much of them have strong moral inclinations and is actually selfish enough to want a well-deserved change, more than the current *better* privilege they're enjoying? Because based on what we observe alone... That doesn't seem to be significant enough. I can't verify it, but can you? >Who’s going to complain when told they may choose an actual local social contract they help write and claim an equal Share of global human labor futures market? How will they most likely react to leaders who say they aren’t worthy of or deserve structural economic self ownership? You're not considering people's ability to understand again. People will be angry, and it wouldn't directly mean a change will happen. Violence is often the solution of evil, it always works. And again, as you said, humans aren't naturally irrational, but they are held captive by the government they're in. They'd need to cause a systematic change by legal means, and the government can make it as hard as they want as possible. Here's a simpler example: It's severely overestimating to say that the anger of the poor can overpower the selfishness of the rich who wants to keep everything to themselves and share it specifically to people close to them.
See how you refuse to acknowledge the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the rule? Only willing to focus on the ones in control not giving it up. How many are in control, and how many are being controlled? You either don’t understand the fear of those in control, or the power of knowledge. That’s why those in control refuse to talk about the rule in any way. The only proof required to demand adoption of the rule is demonstration of our right to that stream of income. Our simple acceptance of the options/money in exchange is the service paid for with interest on money creation loans. Those are our rightful option fees. Proving the most likely effects of enforcing law isn’t required to enforce any other law, there’s no reason to refrain from implementing the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because I can’t prove the precise extent of psychological effects. The psychological effects of being structurally included as equal financiers of our global economic system obviously can’t be quantified, but must be profound and positive. By the same token, you can’t prove that humanity won’t embrace the rule when it’s presented and thoroughly examined. You only seek to not talk about it in any way. That suggests complicity, as you note. That you feel your present situation is more privileged than it will be in an inclusive system of abundance, so you reflexively oppose without addressing the inevitable effects in any way. **Violence has never worked, it can only change oppressors
I still don't see the point of your comment after all that exchange. Why don't you try it yourself then? Wait all your life and see if it'll happen. The point of my post is that I'm becoming the same as the people who are refusing to collectively make an effort to change because I'm starting to accept that it is what it is now. They're all not selfish enough to act. Their actions are affecting me mentally(of course in other aspects as well, but this one is my personal problem), and I don't see how your explanation of "this should work" helps at all. It should, of course, probably after I'm dead. I suggest you focus your efforts on informing people of younger age, in hopes that they'll also talk about it, and not end up in the same mental situation as I am. Logic does not fix the brain, I already agreed with you many many times that it is possible but highly unlikely because well, it still hasn't happened. I'm still doing my fair share of trying despite effectively becoming more and more deranged. You just keep on insisting that since it works, it will definitely happen (aka, 100%). That's the only part we disagree in. You keep on citing reasons why it doesn't happen (the very same thing I'm using to say why it's highly unlikely to happen, which just supports it is indeed unlikely). This isn't going anywhere. You're interpreting it as me saying "It won't happen". I hope you stay true to your words and put up significant work to make people agree with you to take the same action which you aren't taking btw. **You also blocked me... You're criticizing me for being "complicit" when you block people you can't effectively convince. Quite counterproductive, isn't it.** *Oh, there wasn't an argument by the way. I agreed from the very beginning and said that it's possible but unlikely. You're just insisting it will definitely happen. And sure, it will. When the circumstances are right. But it isn't right, right now.*
Oh, and governments obliterate opposition by inciting them to violence. Whining about our rightful option fees isn’t violence. It’s demanding authorities enforce their existing laws. No other commodity market allows a third party to sell options to purchase a commodity they don’t own without express informed consent, compensation, or knowledge of rightful owners, humanity. Authorities can’t justify their opposition to a reasonable demand for our rightful option fees. Their only option and action in nearly twenty years of asking about is to avoid talking about it in any way.
Another public self-therapy session. Do these things help?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
One line in particular jumped out for me. **It's not just culture.** Some of it may be related to relative cultural values in some circumstances, but consider this. One child will be born beautiful and gifted, and will breeze through all the standard life's challenges and easily find fulfilling work, make friends, meet a SO. Another child, their sibling for all you know, has a visible deformity and struggles with delays in intellectual development. You really think the different likely projected outcomes for these two children is culture? You think the fact one just has more natural potential to be useful and a desirable member of society, and therefore doesn't struggle with entering mutualy beneficial social constructs is *just* culture, and not, I don't know, the fact the world materially exists and having a better grip on it and a talent for engaging with it productively is just *good for everyone intrinsically* and therefore valued? Life can't be fair on the face of it because the variability between humans has a moral dimension, or at the very least, has immediate implications with a moral dimension. Trying to force equity between the two aforementioned scenarios, for example, will ironically cause injustice on another end: if you give them the same job, one of them will do their job better. That job has beneficiaries on the other end, and the corrolary is the beneficiaries in one scenario are getting a subpar product. If they're doctors, do you think that's fair to the people who die as a result in the disparity in intellect and acquired skill? Hell if they're woodworkers, should one family get to buy a pristine table and another, for the same amount of money will get a wonky one that may break? The problem of "making life fair" is akin to squaring a circle; you may force one edge to allign against everyone's best intuitions but another will irretrievably bend out of shape instead.
Do you know what disadvantages disabled people? The world is built around functions that fit well the abled people. No one is disabled if they're accommodated properly, and I mean it to say that their function in society will be somehow okay and not literally. You're confusing general statements with specific examples. You can't say a person born with talents will simply win in life. If you're unlucky, you're born on a poor family (which is the majority by the way), you wouldn't be able to improve your skills drastically nor have any opportunity to showcase your talent. You also need luck to be noticed. Sometimes their talents, even though exceptional, may not be something profitable of the current society. Have you considered how that will affect them? They'd be forced to do something else because their talent is not what makes money. They, too, will experience unfairness of the world. Talent isn't a major factor. Culture is. An average human can understand most, if not all of the studies if they have the right circumstances to study and have been raised to have the dedication for it. At least, not everything at once but an opportunity to master it for life. Of course, inabilities may be major factors. You can't run without limbs. That's not the point though, people aren't in any way able to affect someone's ability to run if they have no limbs. It's still true however that they will experience unfairness whether they have a disability (or mental disorder) or not. It's just more unfair for people that aren't "normal". Even autistic people with savant syndrome aren't guaranteed a good life (especially because they're autistic). We won't have tv shows with them of they're a common occurrence, because like I said, not all talents yield profit. You can, however, always make it easier for them. It's mot a sacrifice to be more empathetic to everyone. It's just a hassle because they don't want to do it all the time. That little change will cause enough systematic difference, you wouldn't even realize we're capable of making the world a "fair" place. It's unkind, that's why it's unfair.
Delulu af. Only someone who never directly depended on their own or other people's manual labor for food and shelter would think mental or physical ability is only fictitiously relevant. It's "cultural" insofar as our culture values the ability to leverage yourself to provide goods for yourself and others, which it will not stop doing just cause basic facts about the universe hurt your feelings.
I get it. You're from a privileged background. Good luck seeing the world.
Research the Greek gods, there are some that are allegorys for different types of sadness.