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 these are monkeys paw questions. Each at what cost, you don't define the cost, the question is a trap.
@Aldo6 Infinate growth = Akira
Infinate safety = Pleasantville
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 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.