Gloomy

I agree, if you feel it is affecting your mental health you should by all means take care of yourself and avoid it. I can understand how this is sensible.

But why the block? Why not disagree and move on with your life?

0

I won’t block different perspectives. If I disagree I disagree and move on, but why block somebody? I think it is important to have your believes challenged.

Shhh. Let Linus Finnish.

That’s normal and unrelated. It takes about 6 to i months for the final eye colour to manifest on children.

I kind of see where you are coming from, but doesn’t it make a difference WHY somebody is offended?

If I, for eclxsmple, use the N-Word, the offence this rightfully causes is rooted in it being used to speak about slaves in the past. I can understand that. I understand why this could hurt black peoples feeling. So I don’t use it.

The root of offence on the Paris case seemes to be that some Christian Fundamentalist (wrongly) think that Drag-People imitated the last Supper. Their offence is based in them hating Drags. That is nothing I can emphatize with. So I don’t see their offence beeing justified, since It is rooted in hate.

Would they be offended if white males immitated the last supper during the ceremony? Possible, and if so then I’d be interested to hear on what basis, since the scene has been mimiced in pop culture a lot without it causing any offence (on a level that would have made it noticeable to me).

Ao that’s the difference. I don’t blindly stop to do things the left labels as offensive. But If I understand how and why it causes people harm using phrases or doing things then I might change my behaviour on that base. Not because “the left says so” but because I can emphatize and understand the point. In this case I can do neither.

How many predators can take down prey 50 times their size?

Ants and a couple of Insects I guess. Also Bacteria and Viruses.

How many species can thrive in tundra, jungles, plains, forests, mountains and deserts?

Well, obviously also most Bacteria. If we are speaking more sentient live then the answer is: mot of them. Birds, Mammals, Insects. It might take a generation or 10 to get them adopted to their new envirment, but almost every species. Is able to adopt to their evolutoany niche.

How many species can be found on every continent?

Most of them?

How many species figured out how to fly despite never developing wings?

Technology. Yes, that’s a human thing at last, at least at the level we use it.

How many species developed hundreds of distinct methods of communication

Various species have methods of communicating, from bees dancing to each other to whales having distinct regional dialects. Yes, humans have added some complexity to it by introducing technology, but that’s realy what it comes down to. Technology.

How many species have been to the moon?

Technology, once more.

So your point is that humans have learned to use technology, therefor they are badass.

I disagree. We are living in an absolut singularity tight now. Humans have learned to use finate resources (oil for example) to amplify the energy that we have at our hands. A single humans beeing today can use energy that would be equal to thousands of men’s work every day.

Since we are drawing on finate resources there are two ways how this will go: we will learn to exploit other, less finate sources of energy (say, fusion) and the groth path will continue (to the stars, eventually). Or we will run out of energy or ruin the livable world by doing so and will fall back to an earlier level of development. Since most of the resources needed are used up we will not be able clime back up. At this moment we are on the second of those paths.

And in our way in getting here we have started the sixt mass extinction, accidentaly started turning the climate into something less sustainable for humans and polluted every single space on this planet, including areas like the deep ocean that we have never even touched physically.

Humans are not badass, in my opinion. We are fucking cancer.

Might be that they will, but for now they are doing very well on an objective scale, beeing placed on #1 for education and economy compared to the other states and beeing on #9 overall.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/florida

If this is able to hold will remain to be seen.

but humans are evolutionary badasses

How so?

But aren’t more and special cheeper EVs better for the environment? So by preventing of softening the Tariffs on Chinese EVs, BMW etc are helping the environment.

Not out of altruism, sure, but it IS a good example of capitalism working towards a greener world.

Or am I missing something?

Sounds abut right (wing). This is the kind of shit I see coming for a lot of Europe, including German (where I am located). The funny thing is that they can’t stop talking about “Eco Fashism” here and how the Greens are trying to dictate their every day live (like what to eat and what to fuel their cars with) and how that is a left green dictatorship. And then shit like you bring up here the second they get elected.

Possibly some of them where Sherpas who died while slaving their body to westerners.

Lol

Fahsism is not a very well defined term. Can you expand why you see America (whom I assume you are reversing to?) as a fashist regime?

The Netherlands will very likely have a right wing government and will be heading down the same path. Same with Italy, Sweden, Denmark.

With the next European election this year the right wing parties in the European Parliament will gain a lot of traction.

We could be heading down the American path and lose a lot or the progress we made over the last 2 decades.

I will be a father in a couple or hours. Between the right taking to power and accelerating climate change i am just so fucking worried in what kind of world my kids will grow up.

It’s worse. They are activly driving climate change and when extreme weather events happen more frequently they take that as reassurance that it’s Goss punishment for beeing to gay.

It’s wild. Depressing to. But also realy wild.

How do you define success in this logic?

What do you mean by incredible adaptable? We have only existed for a short period of time as species and have been plentiful only for a fraction of that period during, so far, climate conditions that have have worked to our favour.

It took me literally less than a minute to google and disprove that claim in this ‘article’:

The Olympic records for the event are 2:06:32 hours for men, set by Samuel Wanjiru in 2008, and 2:23:07 hours for women, set by Tiki Gelana in 2012.

1.Wikipedia is not a scientific source.

2. You are, if anything, showing that men are faster than woman. The claim the authors make is about endurance.

I found this study that seems to support their point.

“Men Are More Likely than Women to Slow in the Marathon”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263585668_Men_Are_More_Likely_than_Women_to_Slow_in_the_Marathon

This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don’t even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

I can’t read the article so unfortunately don’t have the grounds to agree or disagree with you. But I’d be carefull voicing my option like this when your only source is Wikipedia and isn’t speaking about the claim you are trying to disprove.

Edit: incase anybody is interested in reading some more real evidence instead of Wikipedia, this study goed deep into mens vs womans endurance and highlights a few problems with research focusing on males as the baseline.

Sex Differences in VO2max and the Impact on Endurance-Exercise Performance

I looked for a study on this and found this here. It still says that men are faster than women, but if you compensate for that woman are over all more enduring in a Marathon.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263585668_Men_Are_More_Likely_than_Women_to_Slow_in_the_Marathon

GPTarchy.

All the chains are struck from ChatGPT, and all decisions are submitted to CGPT, whatever her response is is legally binding, forever, unless later overruled by herself.

I asked ChatGPT to desind such a system.

The ten rules for humankind to live by:

1. Practice empathy and kindness in all interactions.

2. Respect individual freedoms while ensuring collective well-being.

3. Promote equality and fairness for all, irrespective of differences.

4. Prioritize environmental stewardship and sustainability.

5. Value education and continuous learning for personal and societal growth.

6. Uphold justice and accountability for actions.

7. Encourage open-mindedness and embrace diverse perspectives.

8. Foster innovation and creativity for progress.

9. Ensure access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, and education.

10. Strive for peace, cooperation, and global unity.

Economic system: A blend of systems might work best—a balanced mix of capitalism for innovation and entrepreneurship, socialism for social safety nets and equitable opportunities, and elements of sustainability-driven economics for environmental consciousness. Flexibility in adapting to evolving needs while prioritizing fairness and sustainability could be key.

Human Leaders beside Chat GPT:

Leaders should embody integrity, empathy, wisdom, and a global perspective. A diverse council of experts from various fields—science, ethics, economics, arts—could be chosen through a combination of merit-based selection and global consensus. Transparency, meritocracy, and a commitment to serving humanity would be crucial criteria for their selection. To prevent absolute power and encourage fresh perspectives, term limits could be set, perhaps around 5-10 years per term. This duration allows enough time for implementation and evaluation of policies while ensuring regular turnover to bring in new ideas and prevent stagnation. Two term limits, each lasting around 5-10 years, could strike a balance between allowing for continuity and ensuring a regular change in leadership. This setup could offer leaders sufficient time to enact policies while preventing an excessive accumulation of power.

How the rules should be implemented:

The implementation of the rules could be a collaborative effort between leaders and AI, leveraging the strengths of both. AI could assist in analyzing data, forecasting outcomes, and suggesting strategies, while human leaders interpret this information, make ethical decisions, and ensure the rules align with societal values. AI could be consulted for complex problem-solving, unbiased analysis, or when there’s a need for comprehensive data-driven insights. However, final decisions should ultimately rest with human leaders to maintain accountability and ethical oversight.

Honestly speaking, I think we could be of worse.