It'sa me! Meth-io!

Edit: Actually... Answer my question first.

How murderers would it take being imprisoned instead of released for you to be willing to be imprisoned for a murder you didn't commit and branded a convicted murderer for life?

>Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

Until any country anywhere successfully manages to stabilize or reverse a below replacement birthrate we are, within the next 100 years, on our way to a declining global population. And once the pop starts declining, we obviously can't reverse that with below replacement birthrates.

That observation contains within it the possibility of a change in outcome. But personally, I'd like to see evidence that the change is actually possible before we happily tip ourselves into decline.

>So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

Links to an article about timber that says the main reason for increased demand is increased urbanization, not increasing population.

>population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

Links to an article that just says literally the same things they've already said, because it also doesn't acknowledge that "happier" , "better off" people doesn't count for much if the long term cost is NO people... On top of ignoring that once economies start shrinking due to population loss people won't be "happier" or "better off".

>I think extinction is a lil bit of an exaggeration.

Not by much, if at all.

>The population growth rate is declining, but the population is still growing.

It's declining everywhere, and in many countries it is already below replacement. There no reason to believe that it won't eventually drop below replacement everywhere. And no country has ever reversed, or even restabilized a below replacement birthrate.

>There is overpopulation, and by the time we reach 2050, food and other resources such as wood will be scarcer.

No, there is overconsumption. Far better to move to more sustainable lifestyles rather than risk the global population dip into an (as far as we know) unrecoverable spiral.

>I think it’s a great thing women tend to have babies less. This means a better planet, happier babies and happier parents. Win, win, win.

It won't be a win once populations start declining and economies start shrinking.

You're the 1 innocent person wrongly accused of murder. Are you willing to go to jail to put 9 actual murderers in jail?... I'm not.

You must have missed the word "extinction". It doesn't matter how happy and healthy we can raise people to be if the upshot is ultimately no people.

Season 3 is also when they jazz that up, which makes it actually a bad song on top of being a bad Star Trek theme... 🤮

Heart attacks suck!... Lesson of a lifetime... Often the last one.

>TOS is more of a great cultural artifact than a "good" TV show.

I agree. It's value is mostly in the subsequent material it inspired. But, again, the handful or two of truly great episodes really are all-timers that more than redeem the misses... The many, many misses... Lol

Well you'll definitely get your "WTF?"s when you get there.

I watched all of TOS a couple of years ago. The very good and great episodes completely make up for it. But most of the episodes are bad or terrible. And it's amazing how many times you could recycle a plot back when you could only watch a show when it aired once a week. Kirk must have talked a dozen AIs into self destructing by introducing them to the concept of a logical paradox.

Have you seen the fantasy storybook episode of Strange New Worlds?

Have you gotten to season 3? Personally, I found it terrible, which really brought down an otherwise adequate average up until then... Also the series finalé is an atrocity.

Think about how we wouldn't hesitate to put a Ying-Yang on screen in a movie... Most East Asians treat Biblical/Christian iconography exactly the same.

Maybe, maybe not... It entirely depends on the details of the current relationship and how similar you expect the future one to be.

If a person's family are a bunch of assholes who would try the patience of a saint, then how they treat them only reflects on how they'll treat you if you're an asshole who would try the patience of a saint.

Just show up and do the work. If people aren't constantly asking WTF you were thinking when they see what you did, then you aren't an imposter.

Seriously, just ignore what your brain is saying and do the work, and everything will almost certainly work itself out.

And pussy is like sticking your dick in warm apple pie, right?

That all depends on what you want to be motivated to do. Do you want to be motivated to try and change reality, even if you can't, or do you want to be motivated to find "happiness" (actually "lack of suffering", but we'll deal with the meme's language for now).

That's a simplification, because unsurprisingly, memes suck at philosophy. Buddhism would say that lowering your expectations to match reality "minimizes suffering", rather than "maximizes happiness". Because even if your reality is unpleasant, you no longer have the additional suffering of being disappointed that reality isn't matching your expectations.

I'd argue that in your example expectations are what is coloring each person's view of an identical reality. Things look good if reality is meeting or exceeding your expectations, and they look bad if it's failing to meet your expectations. Saying, "place your reality" is just a different way of saying "set your expectations" when you don't want to say the word "expectations" for some reason.

>“All I said was that we well might fail”. That sentence let me know how you think. People that think like that fail immediately since they don’t want to even try. In fact that type of thinking is lower than failure, since failure actually involves trying first.

Except I didn't say we shouldn't try. I ignoring things that we know work in the meantime doesn't make any sense.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

>In fact that type of thinking is lower than failure, since failure actually involves trying first.

Get over yourself. You can't even read and reply to what I actually say. You aren't superior to anyone.

>I’m glad they are trying to build hyperloop. Whether it fails or not. At least we are trying something new.

I never said they shouldn't. I said that forgoing HSR on the hope that maybe Hyperloop will be feasible, much less better, one day is stupid.

>Not rehashing the accomplishments of previous generations.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between "trying" something and "banking on" it. It's not bad to have things that actually work while you're trying to do new things.

>You sound like the people in the 1800s that thought if you traveled faster than 100mph you’d go crazy.

I didn't say anything remotely like that. And by leading off with a total misrepresentation of what I said all you've done is demonstrate exactly how bad faith your position is.

All I said is that it well might fail to be better than HSR (either in absolute terms or for the money) and be a waste of money.

Therefore, until such time as we've actually built some small scale projects that show its better, we should continue building technologies that are known quantities.

>We currently live in a boring version of what the world used to be. People used to get excited about new technology and didn’t care what it took to make real progress and move humanity forward. Now, we have people like you who are focused on replicating what is, rather than thinking about what could be.

Again, not even remotely like anything I said. We don't "live in a boring version of what the world used to be". We live in a world where lots of those ideas people had turned out to be impractical and unworkable, so they never got built... I'm all for moonshots. I'm just also for admitting that most moonshot ideas either fail completely, or vastly underdeliver. Which is why they are "moonshots" and not "Plan A".

>We seem to be devolving as a species. You’re a perfect example of that. As are all the rest of your downvoting friends.

You can't even have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with you. You have no room to claim anyone else is "devolved".

>Good thing the Japanese didn’t think like you in 1964 or we wouldn’t have HSR either….

Again, I said a few sentences to you. I don't have to answer for these positions that you have dreamt up for me based on 2 or 3 sentences.

>... potentially

>Yeah, that would suck.

Yes, if it failed to live up to the potential that would suck. Which is an eventuality that you are clearly not accounting for adequately.

This is like 'New Mutants'. Expect that story was about two bears, and also had a bad to middling movie attached to it.

>>In these works, Butler sets out to challenge “essentialist” understandings of gender: in other words, assumptions that masculinity and femininity are naturally or biologically given, that masculinity should be performed by male bodies and femininity by female bodies, and that these bodies naturally desire their “opposite”.

This is the essence of why these ideas are seen as dangerous to society.

There is a practical need for male bodies and female bodies to come together in order to make babies, because society needs new people to replace the ones that die in order to continue. Gender norms are largely about making it more likely this happens, and to encourage the parents to stay together and raise the resulting children.

That's the "essential" truth that matters. We already have a working model of how to solve an existential question. And the likelihood that rethinking it from the ground up is going to lead to a significantly different, but adequately effective, and generally more satisfying for the average member of society solution is isn't great enough to justify the existential risk. Maybe we can redefine masculinity as preferring homosexual sex (male bodies desiring similar bodies), but what do we, as a society, actually gain from doing so?... Less heterosexual relationships, leading to less babies, leading to a dying society?... Where is the value in that?