You can only have one, as one cancels out the other.
Make your choice.
Infinite growth, or perpetual safety.
Your choice in this reflects your own psychology.
@Aldo6 Infinate growth = Akira
Infinate safety = Pleasantville
@Aldo6 Both suck, Akira is hell, Pleasantville is hell, walk the middle path or you'll fall off the edge and despite what the sages say either side off the cliff leads to the bottom.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club no, this is the wrong way of looking at it.
One path leads up with a risk of falling, the other path doesn't allow one to go up or down and instead keeps people still.
and if people stopped being assholes.
one of these is implausible.
@bitterblossom@rape.pet @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club
"Implausible" means you can't predict or measure it.
The infinite, by its very nature, is "implausible" and unpredictable and un-measureable.
You are attempting to quantify that which can't be quantified, and then when you fail at that, you then say "see, that's why it's the wrong option".
You can't see beyond your own knowledge.
implausible is equivalent to "highly unlikely, and therefore not worth being accepted as a possibility, despite being technically possible"
and it was supposed to be a snarky joke about how humans will never stop being assholes, even though we could collectively choose to be nicer people.
@bitterblossom@rape.pet @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club
"Highly unlikely" "not worth being accepted". This is thinking based on making calculations, as if one was a robot.
How much of "human progress" was made by people who literally took such thinking and threw it out of the window?
Everything we take for granted as "objective" was itself developed from intuition, i.e. literally being "implausible" given the contraints of the tools available at the time!
The Aztec Priest making blood sacrifices for sunlight was considered "reliable" in their predictions.
"Collectively choosing to be nicer people" is an oxymoron. What motivates that choice? Desire for acceptance? Desire for power? Desire to control those who aren't "nice"?
a scientist's limits of plausibility today are going to be much different than that of a tribal priest from centuries ago, and that's still going to be different from the limits of what a toddler thinks is plausible. its not a form of measurement to use objectively, these are terms used when declaring personal belief that something is likely or not likely to happen or be an objective fact.
the "not worth being accepted" bit refers to practicality. you can prepare for an emergency, like stockpiling food and medical supplies prior to extreme weather conditions. it is plausible that the power will go out, that you wont be able to access the store or a fast response medical team in case of serious incidents that occur during that crisis, so you prepare for the possibility because it is likely and you can do so without it being a ridiculous concern. but the implausibility of an independence day type of alien invasion means that we arent also stockpiling classical music and weaponizing record players just in case that does happen.
right now, quantum mechanics studies are fucking up everything we thought we knew about science anyway, time itself is inconsistent and the science is started to nudge us to the theory that each of us is LITERALLY living solo in a matrix-like parallel universe where we are the only truly sentient entity - that reality itself is a dream-program executed by our very consciousness. in line with that, the implausible is becoming far, far more plausible than our general rational presumptions about how the world works want to accept. but try telling someone who isnt spiritual and doesnt have at least some primitive understanding of quantum mechanics and what the current thoughts are in the scientific community that "you are alone, everyone else is a literal NPC, you can't die because you are conscious and the conscious mind cannot perceive its own nonexistance" and theyll tell you that is very fucking implausible.
@bitterblossom@rape.pet @Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club
"Each of us is LITERALLY living solo in a matrix-like parallel universe where we are the only truly sentient entity"
Bro haha, this is literally my perspective. Reality is subjective! Perspectivism is what rules us! A constant struggle between differnet perspectives. There can only be one (Highlander moment)!The problem is that we have forgotten this fundamental "truth" (that there are no permanent truths). Because of this, our society, our "civilization" has stagnated. It can't go on because it doesn't 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 to go on, in a way.
"Rationality" "logic" (at least in terms of how they are defined and applied currently) etc... all these, in the future, will be things that people look back on with laughter.
"How ridiculous that we'd limit ourselves in this manner"
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club notice how I said they cancel out each other.
Safety cancels out growth because it brings everyone inside. Growth cancels out safety because it forces people out of their comfort zone.
People who want to have a "happy medium" are people who believe that everything can be simply calculated/predicted, which itself is an admission of weakness because they do not factor in the unknown/infinite.
@Aldo6 notice that I said you didn't define the cost, what is the cost of this safety, is it a willing cost, or is it cost extracted against one's will? What is the cost for this growth? The answer to both may be pain, or even worse, betrayal of allies. IF those may be the cost would either be worth it?
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club it's a willing cost, obv. Both are willed, not coerced. But perpetual safety is akin to a person agreeing to their own slavery. It is a person choosing to remain weak and abrogate any attempt to grow (i.e. to get stronger). In perpetual safety, there is no motivation to grow stronger.
@Aldo6 okay so it's a willing cost, and by the way how can someone be safe if they can't grow and how can someone grow if they're not safe? A fish in the ocean is not safe, but if it grows to adulthood it must have had "enough" safety, and so it must have had some degree of safety to have some degree of growth, if its degree of safety reaches zero that means it is in another fish's stomach.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club it's entirely possible to grow if one isn't safe, in fact, it's a requirement. It is very hard (or impossible) to grow if one is prevented from experiencing pain or struggle. The pain/struggle is the motivation to grow!
No, the fish (singular) didn't grow because of "safety", it grew to that size because of its own will 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘧 the lack of safety.
Thinking that safety comes before growth is a trap. Growth exists on its own.
@Aldo6 You ignored my detail completely about degrees of safety, do you not agree that if a fishes degree of safety reaches zero it is therefore incapable of sustaining life, and is by definition dead, after which point it's safety becomes an irrelevant question as there is no longer a fish to be safe or unsafe at all.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club no, because what even is "safety" in the context of your fish analogy?
A large open ocean?
Other weaker, smaller fish being around to be eaten instead?
A shark being full and choosing to ignore the fish?
Your last point is the whole argument I'm making. If one survives the struggle of life, then one becomes so strong that "safety" becomes irrelevant.
@Aldo6 Their strength didn't make the safety irrelevant, it became their safety. In the context of the fish, being in water that's not too hot and not too cold equals safety, having food that it has access to and is suitable for it equals safety, etc.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club the strength does not become the safety. They are not pursuing strength as if this will make them safe. They are pursuing strength/growth because that is the meaning of life. The strength allows them to transcend safety. There is a clear difference. A shark only attacks a whale when the whale is dead or a baby.
My conditions can also be considered aspect of "safety" as well, no?
In that sense, just life itself is safety, because if they are alive they are not dead. This is reductionist to the point of nil. If life itself is safety, and life is struggle, then struggle is safety etc...
@Aldo6 If struggle is strength and strength makes safety irrelevant, one is neither safe nor unsafe, that is even more reductionist, it makes the eradicates the concept of safety, or pretends to, because if people really operated this way they would exercise every intrusive thought regardless of safety like jamming their hand into a table saw. Some people do this, and they are called insane, it is viewed as a malfunction if no reason can be atteibuted to the act other than impulse. You seek to erode the concept of safety, you argue against it's utility, this is senseless. Everything has utility. Empty space even has utility. If someone can't see this it doesn't nullify the utility, it only indicates their ignorance.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club yes, strength transcending safety eradicates the entire concept of safety in the first place. Now you get my argument.
Here is the difference between intrusive and intuitive. Intrusive thoughts are acted on without self-control. Intuitive thoughts are acted on with self-control. The fish does not act intrusively, but intuitively.
Emtpy space has utility?
So which is more "useful", the house with walls, or the wide open plains of the wild? The aquarium or the sea?
@Aldo6 The question begs the context. In the rain a house with walls will keep someone alive, which is giving them strength, on the other hand a house on fire would make a field a much more attractive, stronger, option.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club keeping someone alive does not inherently grant them strength.
A person hooked up to a machine in a hospital is being "kept alive". They are "safe". Are they "strong" because of it? No.
The quality of chaos and of nature is adaptation. This, naturally, is forced onto people. They either choose to adapt, or they do not. Having someone make the choice for them (i.e. keeping them hooked to a machine to prolong their "life") is the same as having no choice which is the same as choosing to not adapt. The first humans adapted to whichever environment they lived in. This has continued through history. Evolution is just adaptation to the current thing to struggle against.
@Aldo6 You contradict your own definition of strength, if strength is potential for success in will a living person is stronger than a dead one.
@Aldo6 In other words, you and I are stronger now than every hero who ever came in the history of time because they are now dust beneath our feet, and no matter what we do in life when we die our strength will disappear too. Strength is meaningless. The strongest man in the world could meditate his whole life and you'd never meet him, never know he could snap your neck and every neck in the UFC like a twig, that he could be the president of the world with the speeches he could give, but he doesn't, yet he is still the strongest. Strength is irrelevant out of context.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club strength is potential for success, yes.
A person hooked up to an ICU cannot "choose" to live.
That choice is made for them by others, externally. They are technically, scientifically, mathematically, "alive", but metaphysically they are not. Just as a person who chooses perpetual safety is technically "alive", but without any potential for growth, and therefore akin to being at least spiritually dead if not physically undergoing a prolonged death.
Of course, one lives and one dies. A person is not immortal. Immortality is not the point of my argument about strength. Living the best life is.
I do not mean "strength" as in physical strength, but spiritual, physical perhaps, and mental etc... all at once. "Strength" is the ability to choose to endure struggle and pain.
You keep trying to force a box onto my argument, and I refuse to accept it.
There is no contradiction.
@Jazzy_Butts@gameliberty.club no it's not. The trap is to say you don't want to answer, which puts one in purgatory.
You can either be free, or not. You can't both be free and not free.