I agree. Growth (quantitative and qualitative) is slowing down overall, on the whole planet, especially in the “west”. And since growth requires human labor input - much more so than simply maintaining things does - demand for human labor is going down. And that can be noticed, by observing how wages (i.e. prices for human labor) are also going down.

You make the mistake of assuming that pension plans have to be paid by the next generation. Why not use a wealth tax instead?

fear of decline

we gotta keep trying :)

is my opinion at least

Don’t know why the Republicans suddenly want to kill their cash cow.

I suspect it’s because that immigration (which benefitted the economy in the 20th century, and therefore the people, as you say) is suddenly becoming very unpopular.

As long as your economy is rapidly expanding (which it did in the 20th century) you import people to do all that work that that growth creates. But when growth slows down, so does demand for labor, and suddenly people realize they’re competing with immigrants for already few jobs. That is why it’s becoming very unpopular, and fast.

it’s not that difficult, it’s quite obvious that immigrants and poor people have less buying power and therefore create less demand, while probably working harder than any billionaires and therefore create more supply.

i’d also argue that is straightforward to see. i don’t see your misunderstanding?

I can think of a good reason but i’m not sure whether you’re willing to buy into it.

people naturally don’t think of themselves as individuals. people think of themselves as a group/society.

People recognize that under a republican US government, they’re significantly more likely to go to mars and have prosperous offspring. while if they’re stuck on earth, a recession and decline is waiting for them. they can’t verbalize it and probably aren’t even rationally aware of it, but i guess they can feel it with their heart.

of course lots of you folks are gonna immediately chime in and say “nooo i saw a youtube video that explained that it’s impossible to live on mars”, and honestly, you should reconsider why you’re so eager to deny a topic that you’ve clearly not put in as much effort to think about than the people who actually do care about this project. and also, assuming it does work out; what will you do then? be ashamed of your wrong prediction? because if you’re not, that means you don’t stand to your prediction, and therefore the prediction is worthless. i’m not sure whether i was too direct about this and somebody perceived it as rude, but i’m tired of this feeling of being stuck. we need to think long-term again.

You’re assuming everybody has the same buying power. That is in reality not the case. If you remove 20% of the people, buying power only goes down by something like 2%.

do you have plausible arguments for that that could be used to convince somebody of this that isn’t already convinced?

why am I a human and not a shrimp? Isn’t that astoundingly improbable?

haha yes i agree with that :D

my personal (kinda spiritual) take on this is that we are conscious because we are “nature’s soldiers” and we’re fighting the greater cause of life itself. That is what our consciousness is targeted at and what gives it justification in front of the world.

DM me too pls :D

it will become automatically appealing to them the moment that is pays out economically for them. if they could afford more under a leftist politics, than under the current politics, people are gonna be all for it.

just a short reminder:

you can post a picture of a gun on facebook, because it is only a harmless picture of a machine that is solely built to kill people. definitely nothing that shouldn’t be shown in public

if you do post a picture if an exposed female nipple, banned, because guess what? that’s against the policy

I agree with the following: If your mother tries to kill you, and dies themselves instead as a result of the conflict, they have no right to complain.

I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind.

The problem that i see with that is the following: Assume a child has little neural activity (which, btw, is not true at all; children and newborns often have higher neural activity than grown-ups), but assume for a moment that a child had little neural activity, and therefore would be less worthy of preservation.

Now, somebody who has migraine, or has repeated electrical shocks in their brain, might be in a lot of pain, but has probably more neural activity than you. Would you now consider that since they have more neural activity, they are more worthy of life than you are? And what if you and that other person would be bound to the tracks of a trolley problem? Wouldn’t it then be the ethical thing to kill you because you have less neural activity?

deleted by creator

“everyone agrees abortion is awful…”

that doesn’t make them right btw. hitler was democratically elected too; the majority isn’t always right.

Do they present any actual arguments? That’s what would be interesting, because that is something that can be discussed.

can you name any example? and also, who’s the judge? can somebody else decide you’re too rabid for their opinion?

what does that mean?

language of privilege

i’ve never heard that phrase

And to add to that, scientific papers should be published in open-access journals, instead of Wileys et al. And Universities could run and host these journals, as it is part of their core duty: To preserve and spread knowledge.

Essentially, universities and libraries seem to have a lot in common. Both preserve and spread knowledge.