Half the questions are the same, concerning about climate change, and that isn't even really a philosophical question

Boring

What will define this century will be not what philosophers say but the amount of philosophers we can create.

Democracy can only function properly if the average Joe has a basic foundation of philosophy and the ability to debate their point with skill.

If we want to save humanity we have to start teaching philosophy in all levels of education.

Really? I thought we might find a fruitful new line of inquiry into metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, with talks about the philosophy of "innovation" and "synergy" and "skill-stacking to meet the flexible challenges of a freelance gig-economy while advancing 'green' affiliate multilevel marketing toolkits".

edit: /s

>Will we successfully address the climate crisis or not?

>The only question is whether any of the destruction we have already inflicted on our world is reversible, and if so how this can be done.  

>Is it possible for us to get our collective acts together to allow us, other animals, and the planet to survive?”

>Is there going to be a 22nd century? 

4 out of 13, now I counted it looks like I exaggerated. Rest of the questions are ight tho

[removed]

Also raise average IQ by 15-20 points :D

If you think a gig economy can help save the climate then i got bad news for you, slavery isn't the answer

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I should be more sensitive to Poe's law.

I was trying vaguely to hint at the idea that all this lineup seems to have done is rediscovered pragmatism. But since it's dressed up in contemporary problems, it's being cast as a philosophical innovation.

My thought as well. Most of the ones mentioned I don't recognize as philosophical questions at all. Trite, boring, conventional.

Ironic since most philosophers reject IQ as an overall prerequisite for intelligence.

[deleted]

[removed]

I'm getting a paywall.

Thank goodness for Kastrup.

Democracy has never "functioned properly" for at least 50 years, as it hasn't solved its most urgent task - of preventing climate change. (E.g. 10 US presidents failed to act appropriately since being fully informed already 1965.)

Quite the opposite - the ecological catastrophe has been created and accelerated especially by the most "democratic" countries.

The death toll that the 20th century version of that non functioning political system is going to cause in the 21st and 22nd century... will beat all lethal ideologies of that horrible past century combined.

[removed]

I am skeptical that action/inaction on climate change has much to do with mode of governance. For example, China has also contributed significantly to climate change with a completely different governing system. Russia and Saudi Arabia too.

Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.

Whereas most psychologists don't. Not entirely sure why what philosophers think in that regard is relevant.

Maybe because Philosophy searches for the metaphysical presuppositions that stand at the roots of every discipline?

I think it’s relevant. If you study psychology at university you might be taught what intelligence is and then think about how to measure it (a perfectly sensible question to ask).

If you study philosophy at university you’re much more likely to think about questions like “what is intelligence?”.

Along those lines, the philosopher doesn’t necessarily challenge whether or not an IQ test is a valid measure of what we commonly understand intelligence to be. They question whether the thing it measures is really a complete definition of intelligence (and they have a point IMO).

That will happen naturally as people who grew up breathing lead from leaded gasoline die https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

We do reject it as a complete measure of intelligence and see it as a measure to assess academic potential. It’s intelligence in our western school system yes, and it seems to be stable over time.

Psychology also knows it’s not a complete measure, and we don’t assume it is. It’s one operationalization of a very complex construct.

It's bizarre (but telling) that so many philosophers are claiming non-philosophical questions as the answer to the query.

A lot of this seems to be around political philosophy as well, which while conveniently dramatic and clickbaity really needs us to resolve more fundamental problems of philosophy and ethics to advance on.

Still, with technology spreading information far and wide while lowering dramatically the barrier for entry into philosophical discussions, it's going to be a fascinating next few years for the discipline, both as it exists professionally and organically.

[China's cumulative responsibility per capita is still rather small; only a recent "catching up" with the most destructive countries (who set the stage, and thus forced everyone to copy their wrong ways). E.g. pause this video here in 1999: https://youtube.com/watch?v=o-LQ8SJh0q4&t=3m15s and remember their population is X times bigger. All this is only a side issue though, the main fraction of additional CO2 in Earth's atmosphere now ... originated from "democratic" countries.]

Hmmm ... if all types of governance that have been tried are "not functioning properly" (as they failed to solve our most urgent problems) - then that includes democracy too - right?

> rooted in ...

Yes of course. But which other system than (whatever flavour of) POLITICS ... would be responsible to CHANGE THAT, in face of the apocalyptic prospects of business as usual?

So you would generalize it: No type of (at least all PAST versions of) governance has ever "functioned properly"?

Agree with your first point. Not sure if I understand the rest correctly but if you're saying IQ is somehow stable over time, that's neither true for society as a whole nor for individuals.

Next to practice effects and the Flynn effect it’s a fairly stable measure. Most people won’t go from a 130 to 80 if the test is reliable.

Edit: essentially, it’s the best thing we have, while knowing it’s far from perfect.

Democratic countries may have established the systemic conditions for climate change, but is that because they were democratic? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with their geographic and economic circumstances.

If your standard for a properly functioning government is one that solves the most urgent problems in a society, then it's probably safe to say that there has never been a properly functioning government. Only varieties of better or worse.

Which other system would be capable of addressing the issue of climate change? Good question. Almost certainly one that has never existed before. It would be one that facilitates (or forces) coordinated action on a global scale, because carbon emissions are essentially a global collective action problem.

That doesn't mean that democracy isn't functioning properly, it means that people's haven't cared about climate change

>So you would generalize it: No type of (at least all PAST versions of) governance has ever "functioned properly"?

I would counter, of course they've functioned properly. States don't exist for the purpose of maximally benefitting their citizens. They exist to consolidate and manage power over a given area, it's resources, and it's people. Some states are more democratic, others less so, but in all cases, the "point" isn't long-term benefits or even necessarily anything for the common people at all. The decisions that matter within complex societies are largely made autonomously by the workings of policy and institutions, and when not sorted that way, they are made by a small number of people with disproportionate ability to exercise power, whether because they hold elected office or due to corruption, autarky, etc. I like Schmachtenberger's term "hyperactors" as a catch-all name for these people.

From the perspective of states, they have done their job just fine. It's just that no state that exists today has ever been formed legitimately intended to benefit it's citizens as much as possible in the long run accounting for externalities as much as possible. Some may insist otherwise in their national mythos, but I would hope no reasonable person takes that seriously.

The national interest supersedes the global and the human interest, by default. That's the ultimate puzzle here- the short-term favors making actions to benefit ones own group that have negative consequences for every group over a longer stretch of time. It's a collective marshmallow test, more or less.

To fix this, we need new structures, based on entirely different modes of social contract and understandings of power relations- something perhaps closer to how certain pre-Columbian societies worked may be a good place for inspiration. I don't know if we will succeed, but that doesn't really change the terms of the discussion, I think.

They lay the ground work of all disciplines. And if philosophers were to criticise the ground work, or the "roots", of IQ (statistical psychology) that would be one thing. However just as a physicists opinion on black holes carries more weight than the opinion of a philosopher, the same goes for IQ.

No matter your precise definition of intelligence, I assume you, and anyone for that matter, defines it as an array of mental abilities. What mental abilities exactly you think form intelligence isn't that relevant, because IQ tests test the essence of pretty much all mental abilities.

IQ tests test the essence of most mental abilities though. Given people grew up in roughly similar environments, IQ is very valid as a measure of intelligence.

From the perspective of the common sense you're not wrong, but on a theoretical plane not only is the appeal to authority not an argument, but also philosophers themselves never just give opinion but arguments which are supposed to mentain their power indifferent of the domain they are used in. And also in general most theoretical physicists make appeal to philosophy, for the simple fact that to have a yet proven theory means to go beyond the subjective evidence you can empirically prove and to generalise, aka. do metaphysics. Actually everytime you go beyond pure experience by making a universal claim like "Dogs like this" ; "Women are like this", you are making a universal and so metaphysical claim. There is no escape metaphysics and so there is no escape philosophy. Hope this helps since it's my last reply.

Edit* Also I don't want to discredit anyone's knowledge but everyone who trully wants to understand the basic problems of modern science should read Hume.

Every question is going to be swept away by the issues surrounding AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).

Passing the Turing Test seems like an achievable millstone for the 2030s.

What does it mean if a computer can, for all intents and purposes, appear to be as intelligent as a very smart and highly educated human?

Not just what does that mean regarding consciousness. What does it mean regarding Rights, our role in the universe, etc.

This issue is imminent and HUGE.

A lot of those don't seem like philosophical questions.

> China's cumulative responsibility per capita

oh, screw off with that. It's the absolute contribution that matters, and output / manufacturing output if you want to compare countries.

> Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.

Bingo.

Waiting on sauce, and also not sure why philosophers would be considered knowledgeable on this subject.

You are caught up in a logical loop.

Yes, a vast number of people has no clue nor do they care (or are manipulated). And by the construction of democracy itself (e.g. majority voting) that has then been leading to this type of governance "not functioning properly"; the biggest problems stayed unsolved. Ergo most likely outcome is apocalyptic.

People who talk about "source" in the case of arguments haven't read a philosophy book in their life. Prove me wrong.

I don't think, creative accounting will set you free.

The basis is physics. Measure the share of responsibility by counting the fraction of molecules of anthropogenic CO2 that are causing the mass death.

And atmospheric CO2 is long lived. Plus, past emissions have already deteriorated the capacity of absorption of the natural system (e.g. acidic oceans will capture less and less additional CO2 emissions), so earlier emissions have even compounding effects.

The entire purpose of democracy is to put the power in the hands of the people though. The people not choosing to address something that you want to be addressed doesn't mean that democracy isn't functioning

The US has never been a functioning democracy. In execution it's an oligarchy, as the founders intended.

no

No, its already too late. If we do it will be from a technological solution, social solutions have already failed.

Democracy is only synonymous with good if people are good. We're not. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner is a democratic decision.

Yes, through SCIENCE> Philosophy is irrelevant.

No. It is not. We are walking around with the genetic baggage of 200,000 years of evolution. That will not change quickly enough

Philosophy doesn't do credibly very well. It finds everything insufficient.

Mind control

Well.

It won't.

I don't know but I know the philosophers won't figure it out

If you don't know by now you're not going to.

Democracy isn't to blame. There are other countries that are not democratic that haven't solved climate change either, your argument is incoherent.

I agree there’s a broader philosophical question: Is humankind capable of responding to an imminent threat, when the constituents of said threat have been wedded to quality of life and well being?

I do worry about philosophy in general when it accepts people like Kastrup as a proper philosopher.

I struggle to understand how any intelligent person takes him seriously.

>Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism

While I do agree, philosophy is regarded as a science of the past times, massively obsolete by younger logical sciences that have come mind you directly from philosophy. How to teach something when it's deemed as unnecessary?

Yes, I agree. But then this 'entire purpose of democracy' might be the flaw that is going to cause the mass murder?

Whether a political ideology lives up to its own standards or not - is that really the most important overall criterion here?

"Internally", with its own expectations ("put the power in the hands of the people") it might seem to function, but that is not what my "not functioning properly" was all about!

THE ONLY governance system which could establish collectively binding decisions ...

(and which should have long ago already changed the direction of our current route towards annihilation, or at least mass death and massively deteriorated living conditions, for everyone but the very rich) ...

... has NOT been solving the biggest collective issues.

So it is not "functioning properly".

shrug

To each his own. I really enjoyed most of the essays in Science Ideated and his other books are certainly worth a read. Starting Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics now, we'll see how this one goes.

Its exciting, to me at least, diving into books who challenge the tacit acceptance of determinism, etc. Especially nowadays when we know for a fact we live in a non-local universe.

> never been

Yes. Exactly.

Climate change is a normal cycle the world goes through ffs

I'm currently reading Warhammer books, and they are really interesting and actually there are some interesting ideas that teach me stuff. Kastrup's books are completely fiction just like the Warhammer books.

I just take issue when people try and classify Kastrup's stuff as philosophy rather than fiction.

[deleted]

Probably it's hard to focus on theories of mind and the like when you're concerned if your great-grandchildren could ever possibly exist.

It should concern us that we have to pause our moral and ethical progress to deal with this matter of everyone dying pretty soon.

Is this phenomenon of being worried about human extinction a new thing or did people commonly feel this way 500+ years ago?

Thanks a lot, that helped me much to clarify it. When I said "never functioned properly", I did not mean the self assessment of that system.

Of course, there are many "internal" purposes, of which you mention a few:

> purpose ... states... > consolidate ... manage power ... resources ... people
> policy ... institutions
> national interest ...
> ...

But in light of our real challenges ALL those "internal purposes" are secondary or even tertiary. Who gives AF if a state 'has done its job just fine' when harvests are failing due to a forever-inhospitable nature.

Democracy might be good or not so good at tackling its own aspirations. But while it does, it is using up attention, trust, time, and resources.

And my implicit/suggested value (collectively binding decision structures should solve the most important collective challenges) is "external" to all that; it evaluates the political system not by its own self assessment, but by its objective failure - not having changed the apocalyptic direction of society.

By that criterion, (also) the democratic ideology is failing us miserably. And that made me say "not functioning properly".

> to fix this we need new structures

I completely agree.

Sounds like a bunch of political hacks. They should bring a nihilist up there to show it doesn’t matter Lmfao who gives a damn

“For the first time in human history, our fate is almost entirely in our hands. But our ethics has hardly progressed since the Greeks and our biology and psychology is the same as our hunter-gatherer ancestors: we are nepotistic, tribalist free riders prone to violence and fanaticism who hold a causal sense of responsibility, shunning the disastrous effects of our omissions. “

LOL Julian Savulescu put that pretty well!

Certainly religious traditions all have some sort of eschatological collapse in their narratives (with many hoping in a renewal the other side as well).

I think on the scientific / humanist side we've seen the following all come and go as apocalyptic concerns that never played out as they were originally prophesied:

• Fear of overpopulation / food scarcity
• Fossil fuel scarcity
• Nuclear war
• Ice age
• The original round of global warming concerns in the 80s and 90 (after the ice age scare ended). Most of it in the 80s and 90s said we'd be hosed by now)

That doesn't mean that existential threats to humanity can't exist just because we seem to be horrible at actually identifying them and rarely factor in continued scientific development and improvements.

>But in light of our real challenges ALL those "internal purposes" are secondary or even tertiary. Who gives AF if a state 'has done its job just fine' when harvests are failing due to a forever-unhospitable nature.

I agree completely.

>Democracy might be good or not so good at tackling its own aspirations. But while it does, it is using up attention, trust, time, and resources.

I think one problem might be that the "democracy" we have today is a pretty limited and inflexible version of it. Certainly, the liberal capitalist model seems to have failed.

>And my implicit/suggested value (collectively binding decision structures should solve the most important collective challenges) is "external" to all that; it evaluates the political system not by its own self assessment, but by its objective failure - not having changed the apocalyptic direction of society. > >By that criterion, (also) the democratic ideology is failing us miserably. And that made me say "not functioning properly".

That makes sense.

Ignoring the issue of implementation (naturally), what is it that forms the base failure of our systems? Is it lack of awareness of material reality, i.e. ecology, physics, and so on? Is it the manipulating media and social superstructures that restrict imagination and shunt thought into preexisting lanes of inquiry? Some mix of both?

It's entirely possible that humans, as we are, just aren't wired for making decisions at this scale and complexity. But something about that feels wrong, given how fantastic the diversity of human social adaptations has historically been. We can shape a social reality to produce almost any result- the only question is if that can be done in a way that helps us end up in the best possible place during this ongoing crisis.

I don't know the depths of his work beyond arguing for metaphysical idealism, but I research psychedelic drugs and his argument here is completely wrong.

> No, I am not kidding. Blue represents decreased brain activity. I didn’t create this figure; I downloaded it from the paper in question. Here is the direct link if you want to check it. Contrary to what the researchers claim in their reply, the findings in this paper weren’t “only modest increases in brain blood flow confined to the visual cortex”; they were of widespread decreases in activity throughout the brain.

If you actually look at the figure you see reductions in alpha activity, which would indicate increased brain activity as alpha rhythms are suppressive.

Not citing a paper here but quick copy/paste from wikipedia:

> Alpha waves are reduced with open eyes and sleep, while they are enhanced during drowsiness. Historically, they were thought to represent the activity of the visual cortex in an idle state. More recent papers have argued that they inhibit areas of the cortex not in use, or alternatively that they play an active role in network coordination and communication.

Kastrup ignores this and just states blue = less activity. He also proceeded to die on this hill and continue to try to engage in debate with actual scientists that understand EEG.

If he's this arrogant about fields he's uneducated about I'm not so interested in his philosophy.

He's not asking for a source as in argumentation; he's asking you to back up the claim that most philosophers agree that IQ is not a good measure of intelligence.

[deleted]

That list is all quite modern. Those things have concerned us, some continue to, some don't. But they are concerns and distractions.

Did similar concerns exist hundreds of years ago? Did people take breaks from moral philosophy because they're like, "Ah, who cares, no one will be alive in 100 years anyway."?

I'm wondering if this feeling that humanity might end is new.

I grew up devoutly Christian, and there's a strong, storied strand of their beliefs that everything ends and gets wrapped up in the next generation or two. Augustine to Edwards, plenty of people thought they were living in the end times and thinking super longterm was less relevant.

That's true. And there are probably even more instances than we know because if some Rabbi declared that the world would end in seventy years and then it didn't happen they probably adjusted it while passing down the text generation to generation.

The book of Daniel is maybe the most famous of the apocalyptic one.

So we've always had a fairly popular belief that humanity is on the way out?

>Ignoring the issue of implementation (naturally), what is it that forms the base failure of our systems? Is it lack of awareness of material reality, i.e. ecology, physics, and so on?

The only answer I've ever come to that feels right is that people operating in groups for the purpose of completing a complex task, function more like parts of a machine than each piece functioning as a microcosm of the whole. Each piece of the machine may work towards a unified goal, as specificied by the actor choosing to be a part of the machine, but each component will have its own goals and interests that may not perfectly align with the end goal of the machine, even if the job the component does satiates the machines desires. I'm inclined to believe that being a part of the machine in the first place conditions you to behave in ways that the machine deems acceptable, else the machine will simply spit you out. And that is probably one of the core issues. Gating success or acceptance, as defined by society, by checking against the needs of the machine and largely dismissing the parts that don't immediately provide benefit, such as spending a large amount of money on greener means of production or disposal, or acting like a goofball, which you might find entertaining but the machine mught not. Our machine is geared towards production, and until we downshift a bit, the game will be production at all costs.

Base failure/s ? Just one choice out of many:

Externalities. A glacier has no vote; a frog species finances no election campaign; a stable climate could not be voted for; the global dumpsters (atmosphere, oceans, etc) are free to use; cheap oil costs nothing but drilling refinery transport (and military) but neither the nonrenewability, nor the resulting pollution has to be paid for; (and without politics taxing all those, the economy misses out on that vital information completely, so it cannot deliver proper optimization); and almost no one gives AF about anything after the current election cycle - let alone future generations. All the services that a no-longer-tame nature had delivered, were never in any government budget balance sheet.
So in short, we are losing literal INVISIBILITIES that only a tiny minority ever cared about, but which played zero role for everyone else.

"Minority" is a key observation here.

Diversity - what if the "base failure" is totally different, for different subgroups?:

I've watched plenty elections. The vast MAJORITY gets it all wrong. Each time. And still. Largely not even by their own thinking, but then they did not free themselves in time.
More (much more?) than three quarters of voters are just different shades of conservativism; perhaps that's why "democracy" has such horrible outcomes when completely new societal, technical, economic paradigms would have been needed instead? Only when the relevant timescales are longer than a human life, the situation might sometimes progress and improve, because old views can literally die out. And gerontocratic subsystems try hard to postpone that.

The ecological MINORITY has been growing, but much too slow. Perhaps only very recently out of the one-digit percentages? With its super slow growth, the biggest "base failure" of the ecological minority might have been ... in spite of better knowledge (and while time was running out) still believing in ...

the majority vote principle.

Source: Any book on the philosophy of science, Decartes Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, the whole German Idealism movement from Kant's Critique of Judgement to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, Heidegger's Being and Time, French Postructuralists like Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze. This isn't a topic you just ask for "source" when you are completely unaware of the whole historical development of the idea you're asking for

Can we overcome the greed of capitalism?

ha! I had a convo with my SO about that essay, tried to wrap our heads around it, ended up chatting about the ego for a bit.

I enjoy Kastrup, his writing supports interesting thoughts and conversations about the philosophical implications of living in a non-local universe. Without having to delve into old religions.

I would assume political questions are more practical, and therefore more accessible. How do we stop gerrymandering? How do we restore faith in election outcomes? How do we keep money out of politics? These problems are more solvable than larger scale problems that are ultimately the source of these problems, like how do we curb human greed? How do we make politics a noble pursuit rather than a pursuit for power? The real problem with politics is you can’t change human nature, and the systems in America put forth to curb human nature like checks and balances were not sufficiently prepared to handle the modern world.

The problem is greed, not democracy. Turns out that when companies put profits before the greater good then politicians are easily swayed - by bribes or just fear of being voted out. Seems greed overrides political systems.

Whether or not the political is dependent on how much we understand philosophy (idealism) is itself a philosophically debatable question.

I think it's a debatable question in a descriptive sense. It's an open question whether people vote primarily in their material self-interest vs ideology etc.

But I think in a normative sense, it would be impossible to avoid questions of ethics or other "ideological" constructs. Even the most materialist analysis contains agents that act in a self-interested manner, and behind that self-interest are ethical or normative preferences that are worthy of examination on an individual basis, as opposed to strictly a collective sociological analysis.

Chomsky gets my attention

Thinkers? I think, therefore I am a thinker.

I believe there was a guy in the mid to late 1800s who started some apocalyptic cult in upstate NY, that obviously didn't happen. I'm not sure the cult made it after the prediction didn't pan out.

I'd say the thought of groups living in end times is a common theme for all of human history. I mean, just in modern times alone there was the Jonestown cult, Heaven's Gate cult, the Branch Davidians.

I think this thought stems from arrogance; both exuded by the leader and embodied in the follower seeking greater meaning to their lives than just being the product of sex by their parents. Not that their is anything wrong with being merely the product of sex, but expecting or demanding more for yourself seems futile.

Everyone wants to get to the end of the story since their unchosen favorite fantasy has promised such a wonderful epilogue.

It's not those poor wretches who are to blame for having paid 10% of their lifetime incomes in exchange for a return they don't receive before death.

Chomsky a philosopher? Pft

I sure wish more people were familiar with Walter Fisher's Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action.

what are the questions?

this actually means nothing

Regarding climate crisis:The qustion is where we have to put our sincere efforts when we have the

following two options in front of us.

Ether on 1.going for technologies to reduce the effects of man-made environmental destruction

or on 2.changing our own habits so as to reduce our consumption levels.

The first option results in an endless effort while the second one has a sure end.

But at present it appears that the second option is unmentionable.

The Greeks supported slavery. Religious prosecution. Low age of sexual consent. Racism. They tried to segregate poor people from the wealthy. They had a crazy social hierarchy, where they bought people to teach their kids. The list goes on, our ethics have changed 100 fold in modern locations.

From the moment of birth we are nothing like hunter gatherers. We are in a society and are expected to conform to that society, white collar, meetings, and 1st world problems are what we face now, the average office man wouldn’t even know what to do in a fight, has no instinct of combat, and will sequel run away and call his lawyer and the police at the same time. We are far from our hardened hunter gather ancestors. Shit even Christopher Columbus or John smith was much closer to hunter gatherer instinct and mind set than my chubby office worker self. We just don’t need those skills anymore being near ferel is not going to help me on the office or win an argument with my wife before dinner. Not even going to help me in a fight cause we don’t use hands anymore

💥🔫

The way we're going I'd be surprised if we even had anyone still working on AGI by the 2030s