but maybe this is the thread for this: here is what i want, ypr

[Kalahari Inkantation]

i want humanity to gradually asymptote towards perfection

in theory, the limit of humanity as time approaches infinity is perfection

but perfection itself is mathematically unachievable

[Kalahari Inkantation]

but perfection itself is mathematically unachievable

but the fact that perfection itself is mathematically unachievable does not mean that there is no reason to improve and continue improving along that asymptote, gradually ever closer towards perfection

[YPrrrr]

But what is perfection or close to perfection? The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked

[Kalahari Inkantation]

The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked

this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree

if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense

What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!

i don't agree with this

we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions

[YPrrrr]

The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked

this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree

if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense

What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!

i don't agree with this

we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions

Anyone would agree most responses would be wrong/nonsensical as almost everyone would have a different version of what that would be.

I don't really care about efficiency. Efficiency of what? I care about people being able to have food, water, health, shelter, safety. Not everyone does though. I obviously have a different view of morality than others, how could there ever be an established set of rules that would agree with everyone?

The perfect future of humanity would vary wildly by whoever you asked

this is true but most of the responses you'd get would be flat-out wrong/nonsensical, as i'm sure you'd agree

if you value human efficiency there's only one general direction to move in that makes sense

What's upward for humanity is entirely subjective anyway!

i don't agree with this

we would all agree that war and protectionism, for example, are overwhelmingly inefficient, and it's no coincidence that they are some of the many products of generally unproductive emotions

I'm sure there are many people out there who would desire to be the one to conquer the world to prove their superiority. Whose vision of a perfect humanity is one that is under their boot and at their command

[silvertone]

valuing efficiency is what happens u are socialized in the center of the rat race HUB

[Kalahari Inkantation]

valuing efficiency is what happens u are socialized in the center of the rat race HUB

i think this depends on what you mean by "efficiency"

or to what extent "efficiency" is pursued

the pursuit of efficiency itself becomes inefficient if the net result in the long term is that more humans are harmed than are helped

because distressed humans themselves are less efficient, less productive, less creative, etc., than eustressed ones

source:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3133577/

and at the extreme end, significantly distressed humans may even begin to become destructive

and therefore, any attempt at ""'efficiency""" that creates or increases long-term distress is no efficiency at all

[Kalahari Inkantation]

I care about people being able to have food, water, health, shelter, safety.

...but wouldn't you agree that these are, in and of themselves, inherently efficient pursuits

an organism with insufficient calories to burn is naturally going to be less productive

an organism with insufficient water intake is going to operate at a sub-optimal level

the poorer an organism's health, the closer its ability is to 0

and an organism without security (shelter/safety/etc.) is exposed to excess risk and wastes cognitive power being anxious, both of which of course make it less capable

weak, sick, miserable humans generally aren't efficient compared to physically and mentally healthy ones, so those sorts of basic needs must necessarily have solid foundations in order to maximize human output

I'm sure there are many people out there who would desire to be the one to conquer the world to prove their superiority. Whose vision of a perfect humanity is one that is under their boot and at their command

if you teach or show a person the value of true efficiency, i suspect they'd be likely to willingly agree to its pursuit

if """efficiency""" requires actual violent conquering, either it's a terrible implementation of """efficiency""", or it isn't true efficiency at all

[Kalahari Inkantation]

now i can't help but wonder what you guys have in mind when i use the word "efficiency" lol

you make it sound as if it's necessarily cold and emotionless and downright evil

...well, i will admit to being cold and emotionless

but i'd like to think i'm not evil

[spoiler]

then again, nobody ever likes to think of themselves as evil

so maybe i actually am [/spoiler]

[YPrrrr]

I care about people being able to have food, water, health, shelter, safety.

...but wouldn't you agree that these are, in and of themselves, inherently efficient pursuits

an organism with insufficient calories to burn is naturally going to be less productive

an organism with insufficient water intake is going to operate at a sub-optimal level

the poorer an organism's health, the closer its ability is to 0

and an organism without security (shelter/safety/etc.) is exposed to excess risk and wastes cognitive power being anxious, both of which of course make it less capable

weak, sick, miserable organisms aren't efficient, so those sorts of basic needs must necessarily have solid foundations in order to maximize human output

I'm sure there are many people out there who would desire to be the one to conquer the world to prove their superiority. Whose vision of a perfect humanity is one that is under their boot and at their command

if you teach or show a person the value of true efficiency, i suspect they'd be likely to willingly agree to its pursuit

if """efficiency""" requires actual violent conquering, either it's a terrible implementation of """efficiency""", or it isn't true efficiency at all

they may lend themselves to efficiency but my point is to guarantee people survival. I could care less about efficiency outside of the provision of these items necessary to survival. And also educational opportunities but especially the bare essentials

What I'm saying to you is there are plenty of people who don't care about efficiency and I don't agree that if you only explained it to them they would understand. Efficiency is only means to an end anyway and what specific end is that?

Of course efficiency is cold and emotionless and largely unempathetic, emotions are not ruled by rationality. If all you value is efficiency than many human characteristics are of little value and you may as well be a machine. You're free to idealize that of course but my general point is that utopians are impossible to begin with as what is utopian to one is not utopian to another.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

but you don't want masses of people to just be "surviving" indefinitely at some base level

[spoiler]

that's how you end up with millions of depressed first-worlders who are miserable about their stable but stangant desk jobs[/spoiler]

most people want more than that

and healthy humans are generally motivated to seek more than that

so you have to ensure some minimum threshold of need is fulfilled sufficiently to enable a person to eventually take their life into their own hands, and then start achieving things and elevating themselves autonomously

[YPrrrr]

but you don't want masses of people to just be "surviving" indefinitely at some base level

[spoiler]

that's how you end up with millions of depressed first-worlders who are miserable about their stable but stangant desk jobs[/spoiler]

most people want more than that

and healthy humans are generally motivated to seek more than that

so you have to ensure some minimum threshold of need is fulfilled sufficiently to enable a person to eventually take their life into their own hands, and then start achieving things and elevating themselves autonomously

yeah I'm not limiting people to that? It's a springboard. That is the minimum threshold of need. I wouldn't prescribe what people should do

[Daddy]

Excuse me this board is for shitposting only not smart people words.

[Kalahari Inkantation]

yeah I'm not limiting people to that? It's a springboard.

i agree, that's the idea

I wouldn't prescribe what people should do

and neither would i, nor am i sure where you get the impression that i would

in theory, humans who have achieved a certain efficiency threshold would naturally maintain and improve themselves beyond that base level and eventually find their own most optimal path

[crystalpepsi]

Tec go the fuck to sleep