/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15713350
>Unfortunately, we are also extremely divided.
Good. Now it's time to implement this division territorially and go our separate ways.

>There are no global standards for education, for science, for peace.
Good. Globalism is a severe mental illness.

>War rages.
Not my problem.

>Nobody seems to be able to agree on any one thing definitively. Cultures grow apart. Political polarization increases ever more.
This is why we should split up.

1. The last time around
Rediscovery of Classical Knowledge: The recovery and translation of classical texts from ancient Greece and Rome, including works by philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, played a pivotal role. The rediscovery of these writings inspired new philosophical and artistic ideas.
However, today, all of recorded human knowledge since the beginning is available at a tap of your finger. If you are prejudiced about a place or culture or idea or fact, you can simply acquire data on said question in a fraction of a second. This was surely impossible 100 years ago, and even 20 years ago this was in it's infancy. Now, you can learn more in a tap than you could in a year's time in a library in the past.

2.Invention of the Printing Press: Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the printing press with movable type in the mid-15th century revolutionized the distribution of knowledge. It made books more accessible and affordable, facilitating the dissemination of ideas and information. This being one of the direct causes of the last renaissance is telling. Today, as I've mentioned, such a single invention would be hardly worth mentioning- did we celebrate the invention of the copper 3d printer with similar fanfare? There was not even a great deal of popular fanfare over the incredible James Webb Space Telescope. These inventions, equally if not more revolutionary than the Gutenberg press, pass at a near daily rate in today's world.

3, Patronage by Wealthy Families and the Church: Wealthy families like the Medici in Florence and the papacy in Rome provided financial support to artists, scholars, and scientists. This patronage allowed individuals like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo to pursue their creative endeavors.
Need I say more? Contrary to the public opinion about these matters, the Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk Types and the odd Richard Bransons of the world are contributing infinitely more to scientific discovery. Their wealth, though often derided, may be a deciding factor in the ushering in of the Next Age.

>Contrary to the public opinion about these matters, the Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk Types and the odd Richard Bransons of the world are contributing infinitely more to scientific discovery. Their wealth, though often derided, may be a deciding factor in the ushering in of the Next Age.

4. Humanism: Humanism was an intellectual movement that emphasized the value of human potential and individualism. Humanists, such as Petrarch and Erasmus, promoted the study of classical literature and the development of human-centered ideas.
This one is less clear. What might be the modern equivalent of this occurrence? Education and Liberal Arts, perhaps? It has been said that Music is the highest of art forms. We have seen a great deal of artistic expression musically over the last 100 years. And now, it is not necessary to go to an opera house or a theater. It is in your pocket, placed into your head directly through earbuds or a stereo. Promotion of Individual rights? A source of great contention, these days, nevertheless, it is happening... Scientific and Technological advancements, certainly... Secular Humanism? Philanthropy and humanitarian efforts...? There are parallels to be drawn...

>And now, it is not necessary to go to an opera house or a theater. It is in your pocket, placed into your head directly through earbuds or a stereo.

5. Artistic Expression: Contemporary artists often draw inspiration from humanist ideas, creating works that explore the human condition, individualism, and social issues. Art forms such as literature, music, visual arts, and film continue to reflect humanist themes and values.
Of course, today, a great deal of the aforementioned subcategory are banal, vapid. A poor reflection of the human condition. In many cases, it seems to merely highlight the failings of modern man... Contemporary art is a good example of this.

>Artistic Expression: Contemporary artists often draw inspiration from humanist ideas, creating works that explore the human condition, individualism, and social issues. Art forms such as literature, music, visual arts, and film continue to reflect humanist themes and values.

>>15713356
holy based, slay king

>>15713359
>Now, you can learn more in a tap than you could in a year's time in a library in the past.
and yet people are more retarded than ever and use this power to watch twerking on tik tok

6. Philanthropy and Humanitarian Efforts: Many individuals and organizations engage in philanthropy and humanitarian work with a humanist ethos. They support causes related to education, poverty alleviation, healthcare, and disaster relief, aiming to improve the well-being of people around the world.
Although these events do occur, and although these organizations do exist, and in large numbers, the proportionality of the aid provided may not be sufficient. Blanketing the streets of every western city, lay broken people, lost and destitute. In the US, there are few state hospitals to deal with the problem. There are no men in white coats or comprehensive aid available to help these people reintegrate into society or to reach their ultimate potential. Instead, they are left to rot. Furthermore, in many western nations, political polarization has led the left to blame the right, and the right to blame the left, with very little common sense centrality to find a solution. Mankind simultaneously cares much more for it's citizenry, and at the same time, paradoxically, seems to care much less in other areas. How might this factor into the new Renaissance? What might change? What needs to?

>>15713359
>today, all of recorded human knowledge since the beginning is available at a tap of your finger. If you are prejudiced about a place or culture or idea or fact, you can simply acquire data on said question in a fraction of a second. This was surely impossible 100 years ago, and even 20 years ago this was in it's infancy. Now, you can learn more in a tap than you could in a year's time in a library in the past.

>Many individuals and organizations engage in philanthropy and humanitarian work with a humanist ethos. They support causes related to education, poverty alleviation, healthcare, and disaster relief, aiming to improve the well-being of people around the world.

>>15713350
>Political polarization increases ever more
No it is not. Leftists everywhere are coming to their senses.
>Global standards.
Dictatorship.
Dark ages yes. Renaissance, I don’t see it.

7. Exploration and Trade: The Age of Exploration during the late 15th and early 16th centuries expanded Europeans' knowledge of the world. Contact with different cultures, such as those in Africa, the Americas, and Asia, led to the exchange of ideas, technologies, and goods, stimulating intellectual curiosity.
Today, nothing is out of reach to those who have the means to acquire them. There are relatively few examples remaining on our planet of true heterogeneous society. "All things to all people" has become "All things FOR all people". Scattered through the homes and lives of nearly everyone on Earth exists items from every corner of the globe. Trade has become a nearly abstract concept to the common man, something out of mind, something for the heads of state to deal with, something that happens in between the item's production and it's appearance at your local store. The Pervasiveness of the West.
What does this all mean for the next great cultural and scientific explosion- the next great Renaissance?

>Today, nothing is out of reach to those who have the means to acquire them. There are relatively few examples remaining on our planet of true heterogeneous society. "All things to all people" has become "All things FOR all people". Scattered through the homes and lives of nearly everyone on Earth exists items from every corner of the globe.

>>15713385
>>15713392
>>15713384
>>15713378
>>15713373
>>15713368
Do you have anything useful to contribute to the conversation, or only HeCkIn edgelord images?

>>15713395
I think it's important to contextualize your GPT rhetoric, to illustrate the reality behind those soulless little euphemisms.

>>15713356
And you believe, therefore, that humans should follow that occurrence to it's logical conclusion, and perhaps relocate with exclusively those that have similar beliefs, perhaps to their very own continent of extreme polarization?
Do you believe caring for your fellow man is not a worthy endeavor?
You do not care about the cogs of the war machine turning smoothly in the background? How will you feel when it affects you too?

>>15713387
Do you believe that the dark ages you speak of must inevitably lead to a new renaissance, perhaps just on a different, or vastly different timeline?

>>15713403
What issue do you take with what I actually stated?

>>15713399
Yes, of course, the second half of each paragraph are my own thoughts on the generation. Nevertheless, it was my asking for ideas on what I have heard from so many people about this occurrence that led to it in the first place.

>>15713417
Holy shit. Learn to actually speak English. Maybe then you won't have to rely on bots to generate your posts.

>>15713410
I don't necessarily have an issue. The questions I asked are to better understand your perspective.

>>15713421
What part of my "perspective" don't you understand? You and I both see that modern societies are frankensteinian monsters coping apart at the seams. This is long overdue. Why is their natural fate such a big problem to you?

>>15713420
I don't, but it was much easier to ask what led to the last renaissance and for myself to come up with the parallels presented in the modern age rather than spend hours compiling the things that led to the last renaissance myself. It is a useful tool, not something to be feared.

>>15713427
Anon, you're a useful tool. You hallucinate all kinds of weak parallels because you can't reconcile the reality of your current situation with the bright future you were promised.

>>15713426
It isn't- I suppose I'm just more of an optimist. I like to think of that "post scarcity" world... you know, that future is either closer than ever or so far, it's impossible to reach. I don't see much of a middle ground there. I suppose based on your posts that you think that bright future is impossible.

>>15713431
The parallels I mentioned are quite directly the modern examples of the catalysts of the last renaissance. Nevertheless, you are right on one point... The world I was raised to live in no longer exists. I miss the way it used to be. But, perhaps this is what makes me so optimistic about the future.

>>15713437
>>15713432
Anyone who cared to do so could find infinitely more compelling parallels between the present situation and civilizational collaps/descent into a dark age rather than ascent from it. You've been lied to your whole life and you're coping really, really hard. "Post-scarcity"... jesus fuck, what are you, 14?

>>15713432
You know what? I still don't understand why you think you're the optimist. The most positive outcome is the one I look forward to: ideological segregation.

>>15713441
I would be interested to hear your thoughts. What parallels do you see between the present situation and the last "dark ages"?
I'm 30, actually, so you can imagine what I mean when I say that it is not the same world I was raised to exist in.

>>15713445
Why do you think that would be a positive outcome? More division wouldn't be the answer, in my opinion. It seems sometimes that even one more drop of division will cause the whole thing to collapse in on itself.

>>15713449
>What parallels do you see between the present situation and the last "dark ages"?
I don't care to indulge in this because, in case you haven't caught on yet, drawing parallels is inherently an exercise in subjectivity.

>>15713456
Of course, but one might argue that that is the description of this entire thread. Nobody can say objectively whether we are on the verge of a new renaissance. That is why I believe it is important to have this conversation.

>>15713350
> global standards
You are complete stupid idiot, you imbecile piece of dog turd.

>>15713459
Suppose that each child followed a similar guideline for education, which was of course tailored to their language and culture. Nevertheless, each child was equally educated in Logic(A very important one, it is taught from a very young age in places like France, and you will very rarely hear an educated French engaging in logical fallacy) Mathematics, Literature, Science. Don't you think that would result in a net advancement for mankind, and not the opposite?

>>15713454
>Why do you think that would be a positive outcome?
Because it's a healthy and natural. Insofar as human culture can be said to evolve, "speciation" is a normal and expected outcome. Now let's review the alternatives:

1. You can brainwash the entire population of this planet with a single globohomo doctrine and establish a system of intellectual inbreeding
2. You can establish a global police state and try forcing people who want nothing to do with each other to cooperate
3. You can live in denial and keep trying to put out the fires while the various factions grow more and more frustrated and aggressive
4. You can embrace chaos and give up on the idea of having functioning societies

>>15713403
If the war comes I will know for sure whose skulls I must crack open and whose guts I must remove.
You demons, you lying vermin, you filthy parasites, you need to disappear forever.

>>15713462
Isn't it too late for that, with more than 8 billion people on the planet, with a projected population of 10 billion by 2050? Isn't the only alternative to find a way to find a common ground and advance together? Suppose this was possible without a global police state or similar?
Also, you speak of this "intellectual inbreeding", but suppose that became the opposite- a global net increase in education and understanding. Refer to the Flynn Effect. Wouldn't that be a better goal, ultimately?

>>15713469
>Isn't it too late for that
Oh, is it? Let's stop trying to artificially hold Frankenstein Society together and see if it's too late for that or if it's a natural inevitability.

>Isn't the only alternative to find a way to find a common ground and advance together? Suppose this was possible without a global police state or similar?
So you choose the soft totalitarianism of globohomo brainwashing.

>but suppose that became the opposite- a global net increase in education and understanding.
What kind of "education"? Understanding of what, exactly?

Think about it this way
Guided evolution
This will be a new breed
Cutting edge but classic
Fully complimentary
Bold and self-sufficient
Symbolizing freedom
And, of course, your product
When the logo's finished
Then we will unveil it
Seven billion people
Instantly enlightened
Everyone's rebranded
All the fighting's over
Say goodbye to conflict
That design's rejected
There's no longer language
Only recognition
There's no longer country
Only corporate colors
Color makes us hungry
Hunger makes us human
Everyone can see it
Everything's connected

>>15713475
Operating under the assumption that every human on earth has an unalienable right to be educated, suppose that every child on earth was educated according to their own principles and culture in high-quality early childhood development programs that focus on cognitive, social, and emotional skills.
Suppose that there was equitable access to education for all children worldwide, irrespective of socioeconomic status, location, or gender. Suppose that barriers to education, including poverty and lack of resources were eliminated entirely. Suppose that STEAM subjects were emphasized from an early age. Critical thinking. Multilingualism, not for globalist ideals, but for cognitive benefit. Importantly, experiential learning. Would that not lead to a more interconnected, intelligent, and sustainable future?
Neumann, for instance, was educated in this way and had a reported IQ of 200. Obviously he was a bit of a psychopath, but imagine a global society with that level of intellect.

>>15713485
That's an awful lot of ludicrous suppositions that have no relation to reality whatsoever, but let's suppose them anyway. What exactly makes you think that your magical education system with 80 IQ input and 200 IQ output will make everyone converge on the same values? Not just on the same values, but YOUR values?

>>15713359
>>15713362
>>15713365
>>15713370
>>15713375
>>15713383
>Rediscovery of Classical Knowledge
Rediscovery of "discredited" 19th century ideas on the basis of their actual merit.
Classical texts were already available, but they had preambles that ensured the reader would have the proper context not to reach conclusions that contradict dogma. Only the most incompatible works were censored out.
The same has been happening more and more in our time. The New Renaissance begins when enough people decide to stop.

>Invention of the Printing Press
Invention of the Internet. Freer flow of information. 'Nuff said.

>Patronage by Wealthy Families and the Church
Nothing of the sort yet. Probably the single element that's preventing it from happening.

>Humanism
Humanism was outward-looking and individualistic, the only collective allowed being all of humanity, and a response to the inward-looking and collectivist Middle Ages. The next humanism will be inward-looking again, splintering into multiple collectives. Racialism and IQ. The realization that if members of certain races don't take initiative, things will actively decay.

>Artistic Expression
This will come by itself once it gets started. This is the flower, not the fruit or the plant.

>Philanthropy and Humanitarian Efforts
Again, outward-looking philosophy will be replaced by an inward-looking worldview. A contraction and localization of current philantropic/humanitarian efforts from the human collective to each nascent collective helping their own. Those who will be able to help themselves, will.

ETA: two more decades.

>>15713487
Some chimpanzees have been reported to have had an IQ around 80. Obviously, something must be done about that in order for mankind to advance, in my opinion. And the point of such a system would be that every human at least has a fighting chance of reaching their full potential. And yes, of course this supposition has no connection to reality as we currently know it. I speak here of the possibilities of such an implementation, not of their inevitability. And it isn't that I wish everyone to converge on the same VALUES, per se, but rather that the net result is that the population as a whole is capable of critical thinking and logic so as to make use of their own facilities. Their values would inevitably correspond to their education.

>>15713490
wonderful! I appreciate your perspective. My beliefs are similar.
>This will come by itself once it gets started. This is the flower, not the fruit or the plant.
excellent. I myself speak often of the downfall of the symptomatic treatment approach rather than addressing the root cause of an issue.

>>15713495
>And it isn't that I wish everyone to converge on the same VALUES, per se
If they end up converging on different values (which they will), how does your system solve the problem of Frankenstein Society?

>the net result is that the population as a whole is capable of critical thinking and logic so as to make use of their own facilities. Their values would inevitably correspond to their education.
High intellect is highly unpredictable. People are perfectly capable of using logic and critical thinking to undermine everything you believe in and justify everything you abhor. If you actually want your system to work, your first goal should be to dumb everyone down to a lukewarm IQ of 90, so that you have predictable and easily malleable material to work with. Wow, that's almost like what's actually happening out there in the real world right now.

>>15713359
>>15713384
Dramatisations.

>>15713511
>i have no arguments but i must scream

>>15713505
>If they end up converging on different values (which they will), how does your system solve the problem of Frankenstein Society?
Humans will always have their own values. It is a result of consciousness and free will. The "problem" that you speak of, I believe could be ameliorated greatly by the aforementioned education. As I implied, greater knowledge leads to greater understanding. Frankenstein's monster will be tamed.
>your first goal should be to dumb everyone down to a lukewarm IQ of 90, so that you have predictable and easily malleable material to work with. Wow, that's almost like what's actually happening out there in the real world right now.
Excellent, then we are at an incredible place to start, by that logic. However, I do not believe in coaxing everyone toward stupidity to have a greater net malleability. Rather the opposite, in fact. I believe that beginning where we are would lead to the same result in, say, 50 years time, rather than resorting to some sort of orwellian dumbing of the masses.

I'm going to take a short break, It's a beautiful day in Paris and I have to go to the store. I'll return in a few hours.

>>15713514
>The "problem" that you speak of, I believe could be ameliorated greatly by the aforementioned education.
You believe so on what basis?

>As I implied, greater knowledge leads to greater understanding.
How do you know greater knowledge doesn't simply lead to the understanding that I have and you lack?

> I do not believe in coaxing everyone toward stupidity to have a greater net malleability. Rather the opposite, in fact.
Well, you're in denial. This is getting pretty boring. Every post of yours starts and ends in denial and fantasy.

>>15713407
I’m afraid it will be darker than the last time.
>vastly different timeline
I guess. A few hiccups and I call dibs on this cave. Who knows how to make a match, a rope, a carburettor, a paper clip? Where did we put the file cabinet?

>>15713514
>Humans will always have their own values. It is a result of consciousness and free will. The "problem" that you speak of, I believe could be ameliorated greatly by the aforementioned education. As I implied, greater knowledge leads to greater understanding. Frankenstein's monster will be tamed.
I have great knowledge of the values of my enemies, and I understand them perfectly. It just makes me hate them all the more, as they hate me all the more for not holding the same values as them. This is perfectly rational for both parties. Not every rational dispute ends by reaching a consensus, it cannot be reached if the dissent is fundamental.

>>15713537
Basically this, but I have a sneaking suspicion OP still believes in the enlightenment fantasy of people enlightened by "rationality" and united by some single ultimate truth it supposedly reveals.

>>15713512
That was my argument, Silly.

>>15713548
You argument was impotent screeching? Ok. Your argument has been noted.

>>15713520
>You believe so on what basis?
I believe so on two levels. One, there have been many studies done on the correlations between economic impact, reduced inequality, health outcomes, crime reduction, social mobility, civic involvement, innovation and technological advancement with greater educational standards.You can find them on your own quite easily, or I'd be more than happy to link a few.
Secondly, I believe so anecdotally. People I've encountered who are more highly educated tend to be nicer, more reasonable people in my experience.
>
How do you know greater knowledge doesn't simply lead to the understanding that I have and you lack?
Automatically assuming that another has a greater or worse perspective or a greater or worse education based solely on their responses to your view of the world is a flawed premise.

>>15713350
Thats what your mother said last night when she was visiting jamal in the ghetto.

>>15713520
>You believe so on what basis?
I believe so on two levels. One, there have been many studies done on the correlations between economic impact, reduced inequality, health outcomes, crime reduction, social mobility, civic involvement, innovation and technological advancement with greater educational standards.You can find them on your own quite easily, or I'd be more than happy to link a few.
Secondly, I believe so anecdotally. People I've encountered who are more highly educated tend to be nicer, more reasonable people in my experience.
>How do you know greater knowledge doesn't simply lead to the understanding that I have and you lack?
Automatically assuming that another has a greater or worse perspective or a greater or worse education based solely on their responses to your view of the world is a flawed premise.

>>15713541
Not in so many words, no. Conversely, I believe that increased rationality comes with increased education and understanding of one's environment.
It stands to reason that that could one day result in a greater net result for society as a whole.
>united by some single ultimate truth it supposedly reveals
I believe that the aforementioned education will ultimately prove that "ultimate truth" is nothing more than a revelation that the "ultimate truth" is different for each person, and that the culmination of one's personal belief does not necessarily need to lead to dissension, but rather ultimate acceptance of the views of others, and the futility of attempting to force another human being to adopt your particular view of existence. Humans learn experientially, and as each person's experiences will be different, whether subtly or vastly, it is illogical to assume that the experiences of mankind would align in such a way as to reveal an "ultimate truth".

>>15713692
>there have been many studies done on the correlations between economic impact, reduced inequality, health outcomes, crime reduction, social mobility, civic involvement, innovation and technological advancement with greater educational standards
Correlation =/= causation. In this case it certainly isn't. I don't see how this is relevant, either way.

>Automatically assuming that another has a greater or worse perspective or a greater or worse education based solely on their responses to your view of the world is a flawed premise.
Right. So explain how you know that greater knowledge leads to your position rather than mine.

>>15713522
I hope you're wrong, for all our sakes.

>>15713718
>I believe that increased rationality comes with increased education and understanding of one's environment.
"Increased rationality" is to realize that if my basic values are incompatible with your basic values, you and I shouldn't be coerced to tolerate each other. Prove me wrong.

>I believe that the aforementioned education will ultimately prove that "ultimate truth" is nothing more than a revelation that the "ultimate truth" is different for each person, and that the culmination of one's personal belief does not necessarily need to lead to dissension, but rather ultimate acceptance of the views of others, and the futility of attempting to force another human being to adopt your particular view of existence.
Full-blown delusion. It's a denial of humanity.

>>15713720
I believe that if it were possible to do such a large study, with so many people, over so many years, a causative relationship would be revealed. It is directly relevant to your allusion to the problem of Frankenstein Society.
>Right. So explain how you know that greater knowledge leads to your position rather than mine.
I wouldn't presume to be able to "know" something like that. It is simply my belief. The studies I mentioned in >>15713692 have led me to come to that understanding.

>>15713735
>I believe
That's not a rational argument.

>It is directly relevant to your allusion to the problem of Frankenstein Society.
It isn't. People can be healthy, wealthy, educated, law-abiding and still have irreconcilible differences that lead to mutual contempt and the slow disintegration of society.

>I wouldn't presume to be able to "know" something like that.
Ok. So you want some massive globalist overhaul of human civilization in the name of your fantasies?

>>15713728
I believe that increased rationality would necessarily lead to increased understanding and acceptance of another's beliefs and values, rather than making it a larger point of contention.
>It's a denial of humanity.
On the contrary. It is an affirmation of humanity. We will always be highly individualistic individuals. This was true even when the world was largely tribal. One's individualism and experience need not drive humanity apart. I believe accepting the views and experience of others as being different fundamentally than your own would result in bringing us together, not pushing us apart.

>>15713745
>I believe that increased rationality would necessarily lead to increased understanding and acceptance of another's beliefs and values
Your beliefs are completely irrational.

> It is an affirmation of humanity.
It's a denial of humanity and you are outright psychiatric.

>>15713740
Nevertheless, "I believe" is more correct than "I know" when such studies to such a scale have never been completed. Intuition guides mankind just as much as knowledge in many cases. The interesting point there, is that increased education must logically lead to increased intuition. If one intends to intuit something, one must have the prerequisite knowledge in order to intuit correctly, or accurately.
>People can be healthy, wealthy, educated, law-abiding and still have irreconcilible differences
Operating under the supposition that greater education leads to greater understanding, why do you believe there are any true irreconcilable differences that would present themselves? Surely increased education leads to increased empathy and discernment.
>So you want some massive globalist overhaul of human civilization
Your perception of this conversation is colored by your negative preconceptions of the concepts of globalism in the first place. I am not speaking as a globalist. The point is that greater educational standards would lead to all of this futile "your position" "my position" disputation to take a much smaller position on the world stage.
If you go into a situation with understanding that the alternate party will be under no obligation to see things from your perspective, or as you do, then that occludes any possibility of fighting over the perspective of the other party, as you have both entered into the situation with the understanding that you both have vastly different experiences and background.

Tribalism is one of humanitys greatest strengths it should be encouraged

>>15713748
That's okay. You are under no obligation to see things as I do.

>>15713745
Here's the bottom line: the most intelligent, most educated men in the history of humanity have been people that your political cult would have termed "xenophobes" at best. And just think of how many of them devoted a big chunk of their time to levying scathing criticism on the others, or condemning society. But I supposed a Parisan fruitcake like you is simply more intelligent and better educated. :^)

>>15713769
No group of people larger than a tribe is even real to people. Tribalism isn't a strength or a weakness, it just is.

>>15713769
Sure. But it doesn't have to lead to dissension. We can be individualistic and tribal at the same time. We can be of our own culture and participate in another. We can be educated on one topic and have a conversation about another. "Tribal" can be many things in the modern world. Race, culture, background. We can exist with one another peacefully if we can simply understand one another, and be cognizant of the fact that they are still individuals, even within their "tribe".

>>15713768
Every time someone pokes a hole in your fantasy, you respond with "I believe". This is not rational behavior, anon. Nobody cares what you believe. Come back when you can justify your beliefs.

>Operating under the supposition that greater education leads to greater understanding, why do you believe there are any true irreconcilable differences that would present themselves?
Some sets of values are incompatible with other sets of values and you're yet to prove that education drives people towards the same set of values, or even offer a plausible hypothesis as to why it may be the case. You just keep insisting that education and intelligence somehow instill the fake anti-value pathological tolerance based on pure faith/delusion.

>>15713774
The great minds of the past do not necessarily have to dictate the views of the great minds of the present, or future. As I believe I have made clear, things like xenophobia are likely to fall away as society is educated to a greater extent, and on a greater variety of topics. I do not believe that this would result in the condemnation of society, but rather its extollation.

>>15713798
>I believe I have made clear, things like xenophobia are likely to fall away as society is educated to a greater extent
How come the opposite has been true so far as I've just demonstrated to you?

>>15713789
I have made my beliefs quite clear. You are under no obligation to see things as I do. Your belief that I am saying that this should lead to people having "the same values" is an incorrect derivation of what I have said. The point is that an egalitarian view of the beliefs of others will lead them being more reconcilable, not less.
Here is a study that you may find informative.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jbef/5/0/5_231/_pdf

>>15713798
Not him but the educated are far more virulently xenophobic against the uneducated. Whereas the uneducated simply want the educated to fuck off and leave them alone.

>>15713813
Still waiting for you to prove that education and/or intelligence somehow cause people to be more tolerant of those who violate their fundamental values. Actually, I'm not waiting for you to prove this, or even provide evidence, because this evidence does not and cannot exist. I'm just waiting to hear your reasoning. There is no reasoning, is there? You are just a miserable product of multiculti brainwashing.

>>15713815
LOL. The "educated" of today outright explode with chidlike rage whenever someone rubs their nose in an uncomfortable truth, but I didn't think modern academia was even worth mentioning.

>>15713802
It isn't necessarily so. Here is a study that may interest you on the subject.
https://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/download/705/403/1987

>>15713833
>journal for deradicalization
This faggot can't be serious.

>>15713819
Here is a link for you on the subject. You will have to make a free account to read it, but you will have access to 100 scholarly articles per month for no charge.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2110618?origin=crossref

>>15713841
So you can offer nothing whatsoever. I accept your concession.

>>15713839
You don't have to let the name of the journal scare you off. I also have no skin in the game when it comes to the political concept of "deradicalization" I simply found the article to be infomative

>>15713844
As I have said, you are under no obligation to see things as I do. That is how a conversation works. Have a nice day

>>15713841
>This paper challenges the long-standing proposition that higher education produces stronger commitment to the democratic norm of tolerance
>well-educated whites ... do not appear more tolerant on the applied index.
>the well educated show no tighter belief-system constraint than the poorly educated in translating their abstract position into an applied position on racial integration
>there was no clear tendency for education to be associated with more rapid adoption of support for integration in an applied context

>>15713841
>Hence we find that in the most salient contemporary testing grounds for democratic ideals in the United States-the formulation of policies to affect black civil rights-well educated whites are no more likely to be guided by abstract democratic principles than whites with less education. This conclusion provides a considerably more pessimistic view of the efficacy of formal education in the production of democratic citizens than the view commonly held. Formal education can produce citizens who have more knowledge, skills, and worldly sophistication, but it does not seem to instill a deeper commitment to the democratic norm of toler
Didn't read the paper, did you?

>>15713848
It didn't scare me off. It gave me a good laugh.

>>15713852
>you are under no obligation to see things as I do.
And you are under no obligation to do anything except chant "I BELIEVE!" repeatedly. You are certainly under no obligation to provide any kind of reasoning for your beliefs, or to read the sources you post under the mistaken belief that they support you (>>15713854). Imagine failing this hard while shitting out some platitudes about rationality.

>>15713350
Will we finally discover what happen to consciousness after bodily death? Will we be able to measure souls using tools?

Absolutely zero science or math related content ITT.

>>15713841
>While some theoretical models of radicalization suggest ... others highlight circumstances in which more educated individuals may be more inclined to participate in violent collective actions
>A recent systematic review and metaanalysis have not provided any firm conclusions regarding the role of education in determining radicalized attitudes and behaviors
>Results of the conducted analyses suggest that education has a weak protective role against support for political violence, although this role depends on the context
lol

>>15713858
The real kicker here is that not only does this paper NOT show that the educated are more tolerant towards opposing values, but it shows that they are unwilling to even stand up for THEIR OWN PROFESSED VALUES.

>>15713854
>>15713858
>>15713869
>>15713875
No, that's not the point, I should have clarified. The paper is from 1978. I meant to indicate how different those views have become in relation to where they were 45 years ago.
Here is a indicator of how far things may have come, and how I believe that they will continue to improve along with education
https://www.jstor.org/stable/f8819ef4-9191-3c64-a4a7-2794dd7097d1?read-now=1&seq=20

>>15713866
Modify the cycle index result so that it only counts up to color equivalence.

>>15713896
Worth mentioning as well that that article is from 2001. Things have surely improved on that front since then, and whether you agree with the "wokeism" these days or not, I hope that it is at least an indicator of society becoming more open to accepting one another, even if one would believe that they are going about it in completely the wrong way.

>>15713896
>I meant to indicate how different those views have become
The only thing it indicates is that your dullwitted academic fashion is arbitrary and has nothing to do with the nature of knowledge and intelligence.

>>15713901
>whether you agree with the "wokeism" these days or not, I hope that it is at least an indicator of society becoming more open to accepting one another
So open that it's now common practice for your likes to harrass and "cancel" intellectuals who come to present opposing views. You are severely ill.

>>15713901
You're ignoring that education is itself a tribal mechanism. The dominant tribe never becomes more tolerant, they just move the focus of their intolerance from outgroup A to outgroup B.

>>15713911
To be clear, I do not ascribe myself to the woke mindset. It is problematic, to be sure, but I do see it as a possible indicator that we as a society are trending toward greater understanding.
For instance I do not harass you for making similar contrarian comments in many threads, I instead attempt to have a conversation with you. It hasn't always led to an understanding, in fact, it never has, but nevertheless, I do try.

>>15713918
Sure, but operating under the assumption that everyone received an equal opportunity to be educated, does it stand to reason that that "dominant" "recessive" "tolerant" "intolerant" mindset would eventually become irrelevant?

>>15713919
>I do see it as a possible indicator that we as a society are trending toward greater understanding.
Well, that's because you're insane, since it's demonstrably the opposite -- these people can't tolerate any divergence from their cult dogma. So where do we stand? How all the evidence points towards the opposite of your beliefs?

>>15713923
Everyone would have to have the same access to everyone else's social network and family connections. That's not possible since (1) families care more about their own children and (2) no one can help (or even listen to) 8 billion people. No amount of education can make that work.

>>15713924
It has been said that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and as I have mentioned, there is limited "proof" available in a hypothetical discussion. I have nevertheless attempted to convey my reasoning for my beliefs. Why don't you try to do the same? It has never been fruitful for you to call everyone you don't agree with "insane" "psychotic" "severely ill" in as many threads as possible. To my observation, it has been the opposite of fruitful each time you have attempted it. Perhaps you would like to attempt to explain why you believe that every one of my beliefs is fundamentally wrong?

>>15713925
Why do you believe that social networks and family connections are more important to cultural egalitarianism than education?

>>15713932
Because you can't have equal opportunity without them, which contradicts egalitarianism.

>>15713350
The "Dark Ages" were not actually that dark technologically speaking. Tech was remarkably stagnant in the ancient world after the classical era, whilst in the middle ages innovations did happen, slowly at first, but then getting faster and faster over time. Contrary to popular belief the renaissance was not actually the start of technological growth, especially the italian renaissance, medieval scholars had had access to greek texts on maths, science and medicine for centuries thanks to arabic scholars in al-andalus, as well as original texts by them. The italian renaissance was more of a cultural thing, involving a rediscovery of classical culture, rather than classical inventions and sciences.

The real culprit behind tech growth is the medieval university system, a large network of fairly cosmopolitan institutions that have fiercely protected academic freedoms as well as funds to fund scholars who will work on research (even if being a clergymen was usually their main job)

>>15713928
>It has been said that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and as I have mentioned, there is limited "proof" available in a hypothetical discussion
So far, we've established that:
1. Historically, the most intelligent and educated thinkers were some of the least "tolerant"
2. Even as recently as the 70s, when woke culture began infecting academia, those who professed your "tolerance" did not exhibit it in practice
3. Even your "anti-radical" journal admits that education has at best a "weak protective effect" against intolerance, while other studies show no effect, or even increased support for political violence
4. Today's "educated" class is virulently aggressive against anyone who questions their dogma
Looks like your "reasoning" is just mental illness. It doesn't intersect with reality in any way. Keep chanting "I BELIEVE! I BELIEVE!".

>>15713718
Surely increased rationality will see the game theoretic advantage in a treacherous/parasitic strategy in a world of undiscriminating acceptance. In fact, it's how the present world manifested itself, amidst the accepting humanists.

The only way for people to truly be tolerant of different worldviews is if they aren't forced to interact with them, i.e.: ideological segregation, NOT the consolidation you propose, and not because of their increased ability to reason, but because it is not their problem if people unrelated to them act in ways they find disagreeable.

>>15713964
Interesting. But why do you believe that "interaction" must necessarily lead to ideological segregation? It isn't as though you instantly take on the properties of each person's personality as you come into contact with them. People thinking that it's "not their problem" if people unrelated to them are acting out is also not evident in today's society. People tend to absolutely flip out socially when that occurs. So, how would this highly idealized "ideal educated society" fit into your perspective of limited interaction?

>>15713942
Higher educational standards can lead to changes in family planning and population growth. Countries with strong education systems often lead in innovation and technological advancements. Higher educational standards can enhance social mobility, allowing individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to move up the socio-economic ladder. Research has shown a negative correlation between educational attainment and involvement in criminal activities. Studies have demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of education tend to lead healthier lifestyles, have better access to healthcare, and experience lower rates of chronic diseases. When educational standards are raised and opportunities are more equitable, it can lead to a more level playing field, reducing income inequality.
This is, of course, based on our very limited amount of knowledge on the subject. I don't think people began to even look at it clearly until the jet age when population started to take off. But that was due to all of the aforementioned reasons and the post war boom. It seems reasonable to conclude that another "boom" could occur through increased education, rather than blowing up someone else's country.
As far as "today's educated class", I dont think a gender studies or liberal arts degree is what I had in mind. Refer to my earlier posts about STEAM and the like

>>15714046
>the bot mindlessly regurgitates its vacuous rhetoric again
Ok, but we've already esatblished that every piece of evidence presented ITT goes against your delusional beliefs that education or intelligence somehow make people more tolerant towards opposing values.

>>15713551
I was only reflecting your personality.

>>15714060
Your furious and impotent screeching has been duly noted. Thanks for your input.

>>15714054
I'm not sure why you believe that education wouldn't help with those things. You seem to be quite diametrically opposed to education in general.
Consider the following: there are currently around 110 armed conflicts on the planet, of varying size. Against a population of 8 billion, it is but a skerrick of the total world's population. Even today, with little to no educational standards to speak of, conflict globally is proportionally quite low. I think it stands to reason that that number would only to continue to shrink, not grow, if everyone was just a little smarter, and just a little more tolerant of others. Wouldn't you agree?

>>15714072
>I'm not sure why you believe that education wouldn't help with those things.
Well, for example, the fact that every piece of evidence presented ITT either contradicts it or fails to support it.

>I think it stands to reason that that number would only to continue to shrink, not grow, if everyone was just a little smarter, and just a little more tolerant of others. Wouldn't you agree?
No, I wouldn't. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and you are incapable of even theorizing why that should be the case.

>>15714046
>social mobility
>socio-economic ladder
>opportunities are more equitable
They're not. They're just slightly more biased toward lazy people with an with education, and slightly less biased toward energetic people with no education.

>>15714083
I have said my piece. You can compute of it what you wish. Salut.

>>15714091
It is interesting, isn't it? Motivation has a lot to do with it.

>>15714092
Thanks for demonstrating so beautifully why political violence and segregation are necessary. "People" like you simply cannot be reasoned with. They are physically incapable of acknowledging their blatant errors even on matters where they are objectively and demonstrably wrong, no matter how much drivel they shit out about "rationality". :^)

>>15714031
>But why do you believe that "interaction" must necessarily lead to ideological segregation?
I implied interaction must necessarily lead to some ideological disagreement, to which one solution is segregation.
The ideological disagreement, if it doesn't stem truly from different premises, then comes about because there exists an evolutionary pressure for at least some dishonesty to exist.

It's just game theory and iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Each social interaction is an iteration of prisoner's dilemma.
The advantage of defecting turns into disadvantage the more interactions you get with the same person, because the other party has a chance to adapt or refuse interaction.
The more you're certain you're never going to interact again, the better defecting gets.
Pure altruism always loses to defection.

Suppose you live in a world of undiscriminated acceptance. A high-trust world full of societies in which everyone has high tolerance for defection ("good faith" that defections are mistakes).
A winning strategy for a subpopulation is to exploit that unrelenting altruism until you have interacted enough times that most people have changed their altruistic strategy, either by identifying and rejecting you, or by turning it into a low-trust hellhole, in which no one cooperates anymore, and then wander to another corner of the world and do the same all over again. Each iteration, you have a net gain and they have a net loss. Repeat until domination. There goes the altruistic world.

>It isn't as though you instantly take on the properties of each person's personality as you come into contact with them.
Diminished contact only makes the defective (treacherous) strategy more effective.
Augmented contact weakens defection, but will magnify any ideological disagreement that exists in the population.
The end result will be multiple separated collectives segregated by ideological consensus, or proxies for probable consensus, heavily punishing parasitism.

>>15714127
Ok, but first let's review what I believe: higher educational standards can lead to changes in family planning and population growth. Countries with strong education systems often lead in innovation and technological advancements. Higher educational standards can enhance social mobility, allowing individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to move up the socio-economic ladder. Research has shown a negative correlation between educational attainment and involvement in criminal activities. Studies have demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of education tend to lead healthier lifestyles, have better access to healthcare, and experience lower rates of chronic diseases. When educational standards are raised and opportunities are more equitable, it can lead to a more level playing field, reducing income inequality.
This is, of course, based on our very limited amount of knowledge on the subject. I don't think people began to even look at it clearly until the jet age when population started to take off. But that was due to all of the aforementioned reasons and the post war boom. It seems reasonable to conclude that another "boom" could occur through increased education, rather than blowing up someone else's country.

>>15714127
>>15714129
disregard that answer, this individual is attempting to make a point by reposting an answer I made to another question in a misguided attempt to imply that I am going to answer your post in the same way. I am not.

>>15714129
Yes, I believe everyone should be as erudite as possible and well exercised, too, and it would be a net positive. It doesn't change anything of what I said, though. I'm not thinking of petty criminals, I'm thinking collective grand strategy.
A vague belief in the benefits of "education" + "everything will be alright!! :)" is a strategy with no defenses. It can't defend itself from all other strategies, so it will perish purely by evolutionary necessity. Bring about even an approximation of that world, and the first one to figure out what I exposed in my post wins it all.
Any collective in the animal world you might have in mind (e.g. "we have to be as united as the bees!! :))") is as exclusionary of the other as it is inclusionary of their own. Even bees wage wars.
For completely different ideals, it's either peaceful segregation, or coercion by violence.
Nature is a cruel mistress and you cannot avoid playing her game. Wise up.

>>15714167
Then take >>15714168 as a supplement to >>15714127.

>>15714168
You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but an elevated educational standards can impact family planning and population growth. Nations with robust education often excel in innovation and technology. Enhancing education can boost social mobility, reduce criminal involvement, and promote healthier living. It can level the playing field and decrease income inequality. Our understanding is limited but it seems that the population surge in the jet age was influenced by these factors and the post-war boom. Hence, it's reasonable to infer that another 'boom' could be triggered by expanding education, rather than resorting to destructive actions. Please ignore this poster who is trying to derail the discussion: >>15714167

>>15714175
Look, I agree that the guy is incredibly naive, but there's no need to act like this. If he's really that bad, let him humiliate himself.

>>15714185
Wow, you sure are rude. But I guess you're still entitled to your beliefs. Still, I just wish we could educate you further, so that your economically disadvantaged brain could not form beliefs like that anymore and could only form beliefs like mine. Maybe if we start educating children at a very young age? Suppose we put them in special Knowledge Camps . Suppose we separate them from their parents and put them in the hands of qualified professionals who will teach them for 18 hours a day how to be rational and logical and how to have correct opinions that only differ slightly. Then they wouldn't want to bomb other countries and we could even curb population growth. Just a thought for your consideration.

>>15713940
You're entitled to your beliefs but I'm afraid your opinions are economically disadvantaged.

>>15714171
Noted.
>>15714127
Firstly, what other solutions do you see to ideological disagreement outside of cultural segregation? One might point to the "politics" of high school, as it were. People form "cliques" based on their current environment, but in my experience, they tend to look back on those self imposed segregation microcosms with disdain and bemusement, rather than continuing with the same group necessarily later on down the line. What might game theory say about that example? Firstly; dissolution- when the costs of maintaining the clique outweigh the benefits, students may decide to leave the group, leading to the dissolution of the clique. Specifically, it is a "dynamic game" in that context, wherein strategies and payoffs evolve over time as individuals make decisions based on changing circumstances and interactions.
I do not see a solid indicator that such that those behaviors necessarily continue beyond their limited usefulness of social cohesion and a feeling of belonging in that environment.
>It's just game theory and iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Not every social interaction fits this model. Social interactions as they are are incredibly diverse- Not every interaction fits neatly into "cooperate or betray" In real life, social interactions are largely context dependent. They are not often not fixed payoffs as in your example. Long term relationships (more broadly, the same could be by extension inclusive of relationships between cultures and nations) differ from the one shot nature of the prisoners dilemma.
By extension, only a small percentage of real life interactions can be dictated as such.

>>15714240
>People form "cliques" based on their current environment, but in my experience, they tend to look back on those self imposed segregation microcosms with disdain and bemusement
This is how this guy views the culture and values of France. LOL. I wonder if he understands just how much he just proved his opponent right.

>>15714127
(Continued) In fact, your entire game theory allusion is flawed in this context.
For one thing, the strictest adherence to its precepts can easily be shown to lead toward the opposite conclusion that you have come to. In repeated interactions, individuals or groups engage in interactions over time, cooperation can be a rational and advantageous strategy. That leads to cooperative equilibria, not the opposite. The whole tit-for-tat thing suggests that even in competitive or conflicting situations, starting with cooperation can encourage a positive response.
Doesn't it stand to reason that greater education necessitates a better starting position for cooperation, vying for position notwithstanding? Game theoretic solutions often lead to policies that encourage cooperation, reduce conflicts, and lead to positive-sum solutions in that context. Often, the most acceptable outcome is lack of conflict or its avoidance altogether. Game theory itself acknowledges that individuals and societies have the potential to work together for mutual benefit. That is to say nothing of technology and social media today leading to possibilities of information sharing, precluding the possibility of it's need to be hidden (Why "game" in that context, if we all have the same opportunity to have the same information?) I believe game theory gives more reason for optimism about the potential for constructive and cooperative solutions and the next "renaissance" not less.

>>15714240
The cliques change but the cliquiness stays the same.

>>15714252
I am an American who lives in France, You don't seem to be all that good at grasping at straws, perhaps a shovel next time? Also quite telling that you view everyone you have a conversation with as an "opponent". That explains your behavior on this board quite well, actually.

>>15714256
That is an interesting thought. At least cliques don't often plot to destroy the others kek

>>15714260
>I am an American who lives in France
Makes no difference whatsoever. Your idiotic analogy only proves his point that you lose out every single time to any group that takes itself seriously. Losing is inherent in your worldview.

>>15714240
>Firstly, what other solutions do you see to ideological disagreement outside of cultural segregation
War. It's not ideological disagreement as in "I like blue and you like red", but "I should live at expense of you". Because parasitism is a rational strategy, rationality does not do away with parasites, it creates more. But rationality itself is good, so you need something to fend off the parasites.

>One might point to the "politics" of high school, as it were. People form "cliques" based on their current environment, but in my experience, they tend to look back on those self imposed segregation microcosms with disdain and bemusement, rather than continuing with the same group necessarily later on down the line
>Firstly; dissolution- when the costs of maintaining the clique outweigh the benefits, students may decide to leave the group, leading to the dissolution of the clique
>I do not see a solid indicator that such that those behaviors necessarily continue beyond their limited usefulness of social cohesion and a feeling of belonging in that environment.
Yes, high school is a good example of a forced interaction environment. This example helps my case. Forced integration is what we're living through right now. Uncomfortable alliances ("cliques") will form as to bring about dissolution, and then people will flock together along ideological lines. End result: non-interactive ideological segregation. Not an high school.

>>15714240
>>15714254
>Specifically, it is a "dynamic game" in that context, wherein strategies and payoffs evolve over time as individuals make decisions based on changing circumstances and interactions.
This is all society. Currently it is so, so the answer is like that. Then it will be that, and the answer will be another. This also hurts your case, because there is no equilibrium state of perfect understanding and harmony.

>Not every social interaction fits this model. Social interactions as they are are incredibly diverse- Not every interaction fits neatly into "cooperate or betray" In real life, social interactions are largely context dependent. They are not often not fixed payoffs as in your example.
IPD is a good model of social interaction. You can add more dimensions to it, I added "accept/refuse interaction" for example, the risk/payoff of the interaction may vary, it might not be clear what "cooperate" and "betray" are each time, some interactions may be neutral, but it doesn't change the underlying model of an IPD and its basic lessons: more interactions = cooperation wins, fewer interactions = betrayal wins, memoryless pure altruism = losing strategy, in-group vs out-group distinction = winning strategy. Nature didn't give you certain social instincts by mere chance, they were forged by deathly trial and error.
>Long term relationships [...] differ from the one shot nature of the prisoners dilemma.
I don't think you have looked into the ITERATED prisoner's dilemma. It's anything but one-shot.
While it may be too cutesy, check this out: https://ncase.me/trust/

Second post is you misunderstanding IPD and what I said. Of course cooperation and good faith is good. Pure altruism is suicide. Parasitic strategies still have their niche "at equilibrium" and you will never get rid of them. The first parasite among altruists wins all.
https://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

>>15714321
Fascinating. Thank you for the conversation. It has been enlightening. Suppose that Humanitarianism through Altruism might be replaced by Reciprocity or Mutualism. Direct reciprocity is an interesting idea in this context. In your prisoner's dilemma, for example, if two players expect to interact multiple times, they may choose to cooperate because they anticipate that cooperation will be reciprocated in future rounds. Or indirect, when they may not directly interact with the same individuals in the future. Insofar as mutualism is concerned, the public goods games seem to be a nice parallel to our current environment. Perhaps a way forward.
I am trying the "trust" game. I found it very informative... ""And as you just discovered for yourself, the fewer "repeat interactions" there are, the more distrust will spread.""
An interesting insight into game theory, to be sure.
I'll take a look at the ethnocentrism article as well.

>>15714313
I would be interested in hearing about the "something" to fend off parasites as well.

>>15713940
sorry, i never saw this. That point about the medieval university system is a fine example. I wish there was a semblance of a modern comparison outside of literal billionaires performing tasks of great importance to essentially stroke their own ego...I shudder to think of all of the Michaelangelos of our world that are being left behind..... We need to get rid of the for profit education system, for one thing. Capitalism should stay the hell out of anything involving healthcare, education, or anything else one might consider an unalienable right. One would hope that there is an institution like you speak of somewhere, biding their time...

>>15713939
One would hope to be able to integrate the social networks and family connections and still be able to have a highly educated society. I dont necessarily see why theyd have to be mutually exclusive. Only time will tell I suppose

>>15713350
desd

>>15714646
Education doesn't exclude connections. It's not even relevant. Population size excludes equality of connections, thence equality of opportunity.

>>15714729
so how can we include quality of connections in population size?

>>15713866
The function g(x) is defined as f(f(x)), g(x) is equal to the function h(x), h(x) is defined as -x. Solve for f(x).
Ask GPT4 to solve it. It can't. Are you happy now?

>>15714736
I don't see how you can. Not even on a national level and certainly not internationally. Equality of access and opportunity necessarily breaks down, causing people with that access to resent whatever tribe-sized social network of "elites" have it.

>>15714758
* causing people without

>>15713815
In current year educated means a well trained animal. Those morons are completely unable to think by themselves, even less able to acquire knowledge.

>>15714758
thanks for the input. Its especially difficult in the US, because getting all 50 states to agree on anything at all is difficult enough. I wonder how a comprehensive educational overhaul at the federal level would be enough for everyone to play ball... i doubt it. no, there must be another solution

>>15714788
right. capitalism has really badly infiltrated the education system, especially in the US. Profit margins are the most important things for these universities. They don't care if the entire school gets stupider as long as they get paid. Do you know, in France students go to university for 93 euros per year? Sad to look at the US in comparison.... sad... a country should have a vested interest in educating its citizenry. Why would a country want a stupid population?

>>15714806
>a country should have a vested interest in educating its citizenry. Why would a country want a stupid population?
wat. people in power directly benefit from a stupid population. they are way easier to control. a smart population would wise up to their tricks, require whole other level of control.
dumb population is always desired and will be specifically kept that way through a series of accidental errors and blunders and "unexpected side-effects". lol

>>15714826
oh,i know, it was kind of rhetorical. I just think it's so sad. And the population is now so stupid, they will never even stop to wonder "why". I hate the way things have become. A mind is a terrible thing to waste

>>15714062
I knew you are a silly dilly.

>>15714806

>>15713350
I appreciate the effort you put into your thread, OP. But I feel that /his/ would engage with you better than this dump.

>>15714600
Undiscriminating reciprocity loses to ethnocentrism, too. This paper (https://msurjonline.mcgill.ca/article/view/6/3)) adds a dimension of reciprocity to the other paper, and finds that the only reciprocal strategy that survives ethnocentrism (cooperate with in-group, defect with out-group) is moderate ethnocentrism (in-group cooperation, out-group reciprocation).
Humanitarianism survives better here, because the moderate ethnocentrics are just reciprocators to them, so they always cooperate with them, but in the end what you see in this model is still that ethnocentrics, as a whole, float to the top, humanitarians at the bottom.
You could say that moderate ethnocentrics, in a model with adaptive players, cover for the strong ethnocentrics.

Of course, these are just toy models, and ethnocentrism doesn't necessarily mean ethnocentrism. It's any in-group vs out-group distinction.
The first ones to become discriminating and cooperate wins.
It would be interesting to look at a model with different competing ethnicities, which would play the same game of trust one level up, and see what happens of those who don't play the ethnocentric game at all.
There are also grand strategies to consider, and refusal of interaction. What if you had a reciprocating ethnicity, and one that is half so and half defectors. The defectors know they can get away with defecting with the reciprocators only once, and once they do they refuse all interaction with the out-group, and stay in their in-group. They'll drain the out-reciprocators of resources, while their in-reciprocators cover for them.

>I would be interested in hearing about the "something" to fend off parasites as well.
It's an evolutionary arms race.

>>15715340
cry harder faggot. this thead is neither science nor math. this thread is kiddie cringe. you need to go back to /his/ and take your buddy with you

>>15715689
categorically, the idea of a new renaissance has a lot to do with science and it's implications in the future. The last renaissance arguably changed science forever. So then, would the "next", were it to happen. It's just as appropriate on this board as any other. It's not quite "history" is it, if we're talking about the future? And there's not exactly an /implications/ board is there? No? perhaps /projections/? No? Well, then, find another location in which to seethe

>>15715698
>my autistic fantasy is science because science is the main character in my alternative history fanfic

>>15715702
Men, this computer engineer has lost his composure.

>>15715706
seethe harder. your alternative history science fanfic is not science

>>15715706
kek

>>15715698
>there's not exactly an /implications/ board is there?
Try /lgbt/ or /trash/.

>>15715702
>>15715689
>hasn't read the thread
>doesn't want to be involved in game theory conversation
>doesn't realize game theory is both math and science
>severe ngmi detected

>>15715723
you might as well start a thread about luxuary gay space communism and claim it's /sci/ and not /pol/ because you can use game theory to undermine it

>>15713350
>What do you think?
The thread is too big to read through it but I can say that...your question is meaningless.
You basically set dows your own criteria of renaissance and dark age.
You have set your own definiton and now you are asking us whether we agree.
Bruh, like, why does that even matter whether we agree or not? It's not like renaissance is even a real thing.
>In the last 100 years, humans have advanced technologically and scientifically at an exponential rate. 100 years ago, airplanes were not all that common. We now have two space stations in orbit, many thousands of satellites around our planet, and our first interstellar space craft has left our solar system. Advances in robotics, AI, and quantum computing, to say nothing of increases in computer chip technology, again are increasing at an exponential rate. Cold Fusion may be within our grasp. The earth is smaller than it has ever been, as we are more connected than ever.
Who says it's good?
>Unfortunately, we are also extremely divided. There are no global standards for education, for science, for peace. War rages. Nobody seems to be able to agree on any one thing definitively. Cultures grow apart. Political polarization increases ever more.
Who says it's a bad thing?
I know who - you did. Arbitrarily.
It's is such a loaded question. You need to reamke the thread with a more precise topic.

>>15715732
>Who says it's good?
Science.

>Who says it's a bad thing?
Literally science.

>>15715735
>Science.
Dude. Science is, like, descriptive. Not prescriptive.
Just like Hume postulated the is/ought problem.
Science can't answer HOW we should live our lives.

>>15715736
>Science can't answer HOW we should live our lives.
You're entitled to your economically disadvantaged beliefs, but science says otherwise.

>>15715738
Oh, I see now, this is a troll post.
Can you show me an empiric study that has the conclusion of a thing/hypothesis being good?
Yet again, at least google what is/ought problem is. This is embarassing

>>15715687
Suppose that western society is DEEP within an iterated game, on the 10,000th round of tit-for-tat; and that this is the reason that we haven't all been annihilated. Okay. Now suppose that if the goal is to overcome the pervasiveness of ethnocentrism, how can we change the payoffs to encourage cooperation over competition? Operating under the assumption that the goal is to avoid a zero-sum game at all costs, how can we make cooperation a greater incentive in the long run? It seems that the efficiency of trade may be an example of this having worked to a certain extent in today's world.
Communication and trust building seems to be powerful in this context, perhaps we can look at things like the UN or the EU or NATO as a placeholder or a stopgap measure on the path to true trust building. Of course, we can look at MAD as being just as powerful.
Perhaps the incentive structure to discourage hostility and encourage cooperation already exist. Perhaps within the rule of law, and its various facets globally. Suppose that our "us vs them" mentality is supplanted effectively by fostering a feeling that we are "all the same" through global egalitarian efforts. It would seem that to overcome the problem of the pervasiveness of ethnocentrism would require an extreme unified front. Can these microcosms in our world of today point to a possible or impending macrocosm of the same mechanism?

>>15715742
>Can you show me an empiric study that has the conclusion of a thing/hypothesis being good?
Suppose we had infinite money. Suppose we could use this money to establish a global system that took everyone's children and put them in Science and Rationality Camps. Are you saying this won't lead to a scentifically better society? In other words, are you saying that ignorance is good?

>perhaps we can look at things like the UN or the EU or NATO as a placeholder or a stopgap measure on the path to true trust building

>>15715746
>Science and Rationality Camp
Well, it seems it was wasted on you.

>are you saying that ignorance is good?
What if I do? Show me a study that has the conslusion that ignorance is bad. Study. Peer reviewed or whatever.

>scentifically better society
bwahaaha
let me do it for you
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>15715751
>What if I do? Show me a study that has the conslusion that ignorance is bad.
Well, thenyou're entitled to your economically disadvantaged and poorly educated beliefs. I believe otherwise. So do scientists. The important thing is that if you ever have children, they would not have such a disadvantaged and unscientific worldview.

>>15715687
(cont) I was thinking about your response in the context of a neighborhood. In a neighborhood, people mostly keep to themselves. The joneses live in the jones house (nation,tribe), and the other neighbors to their own. Each maintains their own "yard"(trade, policy), and within each house there are problems, but they rarely leave the house to an extent where an outside force, ie the "police" in this example, would need to intervene. Rarely, one house may feud with another. Perhaps someone has parked just ahead of where they were supposed to. there is a small dispute, and the car is moved. Someone runs into another's mailbox. Problematic, but not worth fighting over. The problem is resolved. Each person has their own goods and "services" in their garage to be used at the specified time. People may visit friends in another neighborhood, but they will always return to their own. Each "neighborhood" has its own goods and services and "stores". The neighborhood rarely, if ever, is under "siege" or is destroyed entirely. Does this "diminished contact" model contradict the defective strategy? The "neighborhood" discounts parasitism because peace becomes pragmatism.
Does the "neighborhood" model microcosm fit the global need or dominance of ethnocentrism without necessitating a tipping point into parasitism?
It is, by definition, peaceful segregation and yet cooperation in concert. Does viewing the world as a "neighborhood" provide a path to prosperity?

>>15715753
Try sharing a neighborhood with a bunch of niggers and spics and see how that works out for you.

>>15715752
>I believe otherwise. So do scientists.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in things, unlike you. I only look at facts and logic. You can't provide an empirical study that sais that ignorance is BAD.
There is literally no difference between Abramic God and goodness of science

>>15715756
I believe that science is on my side. There are many studies showing that ignorance is scientifically bad and socioeconomically disadvantaged.

>>15715759
>I believe that science is on my side.
>>>/x/

>>15715760
Boards like /x/ would not even exist in an ideal world where NATO puts our children in rationality camps. How is that not a scientifically better outcome??

>>15715763
>NATO puts our children in rationality camps
ahahahahh
>>>/b/

>>15715763
does anybody even know what this schizo is talking about?

>>15715766
>>15715765
Calling me names doesn't make you look any more rational or educated.

>>15715755
I have lived in bad neighborhoods before. Once, I had a shotgun to my head, and my hands were zip tied while people robbed my house. Another time, in a case of mistaken identity, I was chased by bloods in a car until we crashed off the road and were chased through the woods by armed people trying to kill us. But, I still believe that the "bad neighborhoods" in this model could be improved. That would be better for everybody---- it's just a matter of identifying the ROOT causes of problems instead of treating them symptomatically--- I do believe it can be done. Mankind has done many more astounding and complicated things. I believe that is a small problem compared to the ones we have faced in the past.

>>15715767
Oh, no, my brother in Christ, you are the most ignorant person I have seen in a long time.
A tiger doesn't change their stripes.

>>15715773
>I have lived in bad neighborhoods before.
Then you should know that insofar as the world could be considered a neighborhood, it is a very bad neighborhood.

>>15715778
I don't understand why you're so aggressive and anti-science. I believe that we need a global system to educate our children. Suppose we could task a well-established and well-trusted global organization like NATO or the UN with setting up Rationality Camps for our children. Don't you think this would lead to scientifically better global society with less economically disadvantaged opinions?

>>15715778
No, but people have "trained" tigers. Even domesticated them. Albeit to varying degrees of success, but it has been done. I do believe that that "tiger" could be tamed as well.
>>15715779
True, but look out your window. How many murders, stabbings, explosions, fights, conflicts, or deaths can you see? The proportionality of conflict vs population is in our favor. We have to use that to our advantage to move forward.

>>15715782
This individual is still trying to cosplay as me, the OP. He is not doing a very good job.
I don't blame him, however. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

>>15715792
>How many murders, stabbings, explosions, fights, conflicts, or deaths can you see?
None, because I live around people like myself and not around people like you.

>>15715794
You're the only one cosplaying here, as someone with an IQ over 90.

>>15715795
I would try and move past the mentality of "people like me" "people like you" when it comes to difference of opinion. a person does not become a different "type" simply for viewing the world differently. Ad hominem does not become you.
Difference of opinion is what makes us individuals, you understand.
Cogito Ergo Sum.

>>15715799
I'm sorry you feel so threatened.

>>15715801
Your impotent whinging notwithstanding, my point still stands completely unchallenged.

>>15715782
You are a communist. The worst kind.
Do you know how many people have died in the past century for the sake of progress? How is that a good thing?

>global society with less economically disadvantaged opinions
Yea, by killing all the poor people and taking away from the rich.


>>15715801
>Cogito Ergo Sum.
Oh, so now we are doing philosophy. How about you solve the is/ought problem, huh?

>>15713350
I think I should hate my country and spread based and redpilled talking points that I see on the newest social media

>>15715802
I'm sorry neither of your parents could score higher than 90 on an IQ test. I'm sorry that your "education" couldn't fix it.

>>15715804
>You are a communist.
Is that what the economically disadvantaged call humanitarians now? If only we could educate people like you... or, should I say, re-educate.

>>15715805
>I think I should hate my country
You should if you're American.

>>15715804
>>15715782 is cosplaying as OP. Ignore him.

>>15715817
OP is indistinguishable from any other sub-90-IQ mongrel so your point is moot.

>>15715819
>sub 90 IQ
Freud would say you are projecting.
I am so sorry for your lack of mental faculties. It must be very difficult for you.

>>15715823
Unironically get your IQ checked. I think the results would stop you posting any more such drivel.

>>15715827
>any more such drivel
Oh, dear. What terrible grammar. I do believe you have revealed your true intelligence. A pity.

>>15713350
>>>/his/

>>15715831
Not even sure if you're trolling or literally showing off your mental deficiency at this point.

>>15715803
That's beside the point, laddie. There is no need to challenge an opinion. That's how conversation works.

>>15715834
What opinions? I'm pointing out the objective, observable, measurable fact that neighborhoods infested with your type tend towards violent criminality.

>>15715833
You mean figuratively. It would be quite impossible to "show" anything on a text forum.

>>15715744
>>15715753
>Suppose that western society is DEEP within an iterated game, on the 10,000th round of tit-for-tat; and that this is the reason that we haven't all been annihilated. Okay. Now suppose that if the goal is to overcome the pervasiveness of ethnocentrism, how can we change the payoffs to encourage cooperation over competition?
You can't eliminate the incentive for competition, because the very conditions for competition to be competitive is when cooperation is the only game in town.

Again, what you're doing is tweaking parameters so that you can find THE ONE model in which the world you want is selected, without accounting for the fact that to sustain those incentives you have to spend resources, which makes it an unstable after all: it will decay in one of the models that don't give you what you want. People will adapt their strategies to circumvent your incentives.

You're married to an outcome, and that clouds your reasoning.
As I said before, even the more collectivist/cooperative animals tend to be the most vicious competitors, it's one hive against another. Perfect cooperation doesn't exist in nature. The first ones within that scheme to figure out they can just prefer their own wins it all. But one thing is very clear: it would be very advantageous for certain ethnocentrists to brainwash everyone else into being selfless humanitarians. Then they'd reign unchallenged.

>>15715835
Yes, interesting. Perhaps if I understood what "my type" was, I would be able to quantify your willfully incomplete data set.

>>15715839
Hell, we have many examples of your type turning entire cities and entire states into criminal shitholes as soon as their deadend worldview comes to dominate.

>>15715836
>t. too dumb for basic english

>>15715839
>I would be able to quantify your willfully incomplete data set.
holy mother of all poorly educated pseuds... this is like watching a 5 years old trying to imitate adult talk

>>15715837
Yes, but I do not speak here of eliminating the incentive for competition, but rather transmuting it. Isn't that no more difficult than making the reward for cooperation greater than the reward for conflict?
Surely cooperative competition can be achieved. We have resources, for example. They just aren't allocated correctly. But they could be, were it possible to incentivize said allocation in such a way as to make it more attractive to cooperate.
To be clear, I don't know that it IS possible, but if I'm married to an outcome, it is to find an equitable path to that outcome.

>>15715851
The reward for defection against dullwitted ideologues is always greater than the reward for cooperation with dullwitted ideologues.

>>15715842
>cities
>states
>your type
Ah, I see now. A conservative American. That makes much more sense. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that ideas can be categorically, neatly placed into just two camps. "liberal, conservative. Binary, black and white, 1 or 0. You will have to learn that the world does not operate in that way. There are always more options than yes, no, 1, 0.

>>15715861
You're the only one laboring under a delusion: specifically, that I'm American or conservative. As for my statement, every element of it is objectively correct.

>>15715815
every real american patriot knows this

>>15715854
Certainly, but I still believe there is an ideological method to be found in which the necessity of conflict with another's viewpoint is invalidated, made unnecessary, extraneous. The world does not operate in such a constrained framework.

>>15715851
>but I do not speak here of eliminating the incentive for competition, but rather transmuting it
If you need the perfect formula to transmute competitive incentives into cooperative ones, what do you do when they transmute back to being competitive due to evolutionary necessity?

If what you speak for were a natural state of competition, you'd find it in nature, because the nature experiment, having been running for quite a while now, is much more efficient at exploring the space of possibilities than we are. You don't find anything of the sort.

>>15715863
*subjectively
And, only in your own mind.

>>15715867
No one cares what you believe. I'm just telling you for a fact that the only "reward" for submitting to your dullwit ideology is getting backstabbed and outcompeted by collectives that are either too dumb or too smart to fall for it.

>>15715870
Crime statistics are not subjective. Sorry. You represent a civilization-ending disease. This is demonstrably true. All you have to do is check objective outcome statistics for places where people submit to your worldview.

>>15715869
Of course, in nature, it would be difficult to find an example. However, we must consider ourselves to be outside of that "nature" in the sense that we are possibly the only sentient, sapient, bipedal hominids capable of having a conversation about possibilities in the first place. It's lack of a valid example in nature does not necessarily preclude the possibility of an example being found among the "habitat" of mankind. The need for it to "transmute back" is an occlusion based on a viewpoint of a binary nature. Our society is not binary, but trinary, and perhaps more. Each possibility reveals hundreds more. Not even game theory can explain the constant subcategorical branching of novel possibilities constantly branching from each preceding event. One could argue, in fact, that the "fighting" "competition" behavior has already begun to be transmuted into it's ultimate evolution. One example of this is again, the proportionality of conflict versus population and it's continuing diminution. If that rate continues it's evidently natural growth pattern, it stands to reason that that ratio will eventually reach a point of no conflict of its own accord, sans outside direction or influence. With help, therefore, it seems to point to the inevitability of peace, rather than it's impossibility.

>we must consider ourselves to be outside of that "nature"
This mongoloid considers himself outside of reality altogether.

>>15715878
>Of course, in nature, it would be difficult to find an example. However, we must consider ourselves to be outside of that "nature"
No.

Hope that helps.

>>15715874
If crime statistics are not subjective, then they are correct, yes? However, it has been demonstrated that they can be inaccurate or reported in an incomplete or biased fashion. Therefore they rest outside of an "objective" "subjective" possibility frame. They are neither true nor false, they are simply statistics. And if you have studied statistics, you will be cognizant of the fallibility of an incomplete data set. Were it so simple to categorize those statistics as "objective" as you say, that would still leave the possibility of your interpretation of the same to be "subjective"; and therefore false against the true data set. The world does not operate in binary.

>>15715889
>it has been demonstrated that they can be inaccurate or reported in an incomplete or biased fashion.
And here we go. Look, there is no need for any more conversations. It's time for people to mount some form of self-defense and start to outright kill people who talk like you.

>>15715890
Ok, good luck. Go have lots of conversations, and begin killing the ones you don't agree with. You are certainly a rational being, and will serve well as the supreme arbiter of right versus wrong. I suggest you start today.

>>15715896
Anyone who refuses to remove you from society is irrational to the point of being demonstrably dysgenic.

>>15715896
>I reject analyzing society through rational means, unless the outcome of said analysis agrees with what I believe
>I am very rational

>>15715880
Nature≠Reality, but nice attempt in understanding fine distinctions. It must have been quite a strain for you.

>>15715896
By the way, when you're done crying about how heckin' divided the world is, you should contemplate what this growing division means for your physical safety. :^)

>>15715900
And it only took you about 200 posts to catch on to this persistent behavior of his. lol

>>15715906
I'm still not sure if it's actually him t b h. OP was naive but not this retarded. I just take every post seriously because it's easier that way.

>>15715890
>>15715896
>>15715897
>>15715900
Look at them go! Fascinating. It is rare to see such an outstanding example of herd mentality. They even believe they alone understand the world! Yes, how very "rational" they are, in believing that anyone that does not believe as they do is "irrational"! There is certainly nothing wrong with their fear based neophobia. Or is it athazagoraphobia? tut, tut, how sad it is to not see the world exactly as they do.

>>15715908
No, that's him. When I mock him I at least try to make it somewhat entertaining. You can tell that post is his because it's fucking sad.

>>15715902
listen, ":^)", we all know you take your job as the board jester very seriously, but it is, after all, an unpaid position. Perhaps a vacation?

>>15715911
So what are you gonna do when the divisions you sow fester into overt physical violence? Move to RationalityLand? Unite under the rationality flag with the rest of your Rational tribe and fight back? Maybe try to reason with all those irrationals and explain how it's more rational to cooperate with you? Maybe you can convince them that they're not part of nature and then everything will be settled.

>>15715915
Woe to him I guess. I got to sperg about the game theory of social interaction, it's a net win for me.

>>15715919
Not as seriously as you take your job as the resident lolcow.

ITT: People who absolutely, positively, HATE anyone with a difference of viewpoint, opinion, thought process, outlook, priority, conversation, perspective, race, optimism, health, shoes, family, home, refrigerator contents, sock drawer, body wash, dog food, technology, philosophy, philanthropy, quality, intelligence, body, race, library, language, country, city, village, town, bookshelf, dish drying rack, light fixtures, education, background, political views, or brand of toilet paper different than their very own.
How sad.

If anything was going to convince OP that we are NOT on the verge of a new renaissance, it would've been you people.

>>15715926
You're a butthurt faggot who's continuously wrong about everything and cannot be reasoned with. Everyone but you can see this.

>>15715926
reminder that there is literally nothing wrong with hating people who infest your society, undermine your basic values and subvert what you consider good in favor of what you consider bad

>>15715937
>what you consider
Yes, you do seem to understand

>>15715942
what were you trying to express? did you have some kind of mental malfunction?

>>15715943
no, you understand what was said.
What YOU consider to be right or wrong does not necessarily mean that it IS right or wrong objectively. That's how opinions work.

>>15715947
>What YOU consider to be right or wrong does not necessarily mean that it IS right or wrong objectively.
obviously. what difference does it make to the truth of my post?

Hi, OP here. I just got my day started, it's a beautiful day in Paris. I am very disappointed to see what this thread has become in my absence. This is not at all the thought provoking conversation I thought that it would be- I suppose I expected better of /sci/. The only thing that makes me feel better about what has happened in this thread is that there have only been 17 people in total contributing to this "conversation", and that it doesn't reflect society as a whole. Never in my 14 years on this website have I seen such an admonition of the viewpoint that 4chan is the skidmark on the underpants of polite society. I never would have expected this behavior from a blue board, in particular. /sci/ used to be a place of great conversation and debate. It goes without saying I am abandoning thread. Good luck to you all. Salut.

>Hi, OP here. I just got my day started, it's a beautiful day in Paris. I am very disappointed to see what this thread has become in my absence. This is not at all the thought provoking conversation I thought that it would be- I suppose I expected better of /sci/. The only thing that makes me feel better about what has happened in this thread is that there have only been 17 people in total contributing to this "conversation", and that it doesn't reflect society as a whole. Never in my 14 years on this website have I seen such an admonition of the viewpoint that 4chan is the skidmark on the underpants of polite society. I never would have expected this behavior from a blue board, in particular. /sci/ used to be a place of great conversation and debate. It goes without saying I am abandoning thread. Good luck to you all. Salut.

>>15713350
>We are in the Dark Ages of our time
Yeah, just criticize the unscientific, science-denying, anti-science creation myth of evolutionism that contradicts all observational science and you'll see how bad it is, but they demand you have faith and believe or else, and they'll ruin your career over it if they can rather than just showing you evidence that all life came from a common ancestor or such drastic changes are even possible. It's a cult, a subset of the naturalist religion, or the creation story of naturalism. Neither are permitted to be criticized in mainstream academia or science and they won't even allow the thought of losing tax-funding for their religion to indoctrinate the youth. Kids raised believing they're animals and share a common ancestry with earth worms and maggots and society is in horrible shape, people act like animals because why not, they treat others like animals because why not; rape and murder and child sacrifice is just survival of the fittest and natural selection in a naturalist's world; and lying is perfectly fine, especially to force their retarded science-denying man-made superstition. No evolutionist or naturalist can even ever debate either, they're all indoctrinated retards who were only taught what to think but think they were taught how to think. They literally think finches producing finches, and some information being *lost* proves that new information is added all the time and new kinds of creatures are made if you just wait 2 more millennia, trust the experts, just have faith and believe. Total blind faith beliefs they falsely call science.

Pic related: the reality behind OP's vision of polite society.

>>15715952
>it's a beautiful day in Paris

>>15715965
wait, have you been there? There are parts of that city that are like paradise

>>15715965
t. has never been to san francisco

>>15715976
Ew. That's the xenophobic part of Paris. Pic related is where the enlightened hang out.

>>15715982
>san francisco
That's OP's stronghold in America. Good thing the US is not a real nation and doesn't have disgusting monuments to racism and xenophobia on every corner like Europe does.

kek wtf is going on in here
ITT: neckbeards arguing among themselves at 4am

>>15713718
>Conversely, I believe that increased rationality comes with increased education
How do you tell if the education is teaching the truth, if doubting it makes you a pariah?

>>15716000
Oh, but suppose there was a perfect, infallible world government that offered perfect and infallible education.

>>15713745
>We will always be highly individualistic individuals.
Individualism is an extreme aberration in human history. It was tried twice: the interwar period, which ended badly, and after WW2, which only exists though absolutely brutal enforcement and pretense that everything is working perfectly. No other period of known history even possessed the means to enforce anything so unnatural.

>>15716028
NTA but the point you raise is moot. The whole question of individualism vs. collectivism only arises in the context of the abhorrent, aberrant, unnatural monstrosity you call a civilized society, and individualism only arises as a counterpoint to the assault on humanity that large-scale anti-human "societies" inevitably imply.

>>15716032
It isn't civilized society. It's the post WW1 rejection of civilized life.

>>15716021
At that point just imagine perfect, infallible people.

>>15716040
Jesus Christ, what a tar-black gorilla nigger you are.

>>15716042
That's exactly what I like to imagine and we can make it happen... if only everybody acknowledged the genius of my Enlightenment 2.0 idea.

>>15716043
Is it my English, or my opinion?
I'm an ESL, so that excuses me, and there can be no doubt that a reversal occured at that point, towards embracing more "animalistic" nature, which aggain, appears to be almost completely forced from above, which was tried for some time before television could make sufficiently effective brainwashing possible.

>>15716049
I have no idea why you're talking to me about WW1. I'm talking about something more fundamental: the irreconcilable tensions between the freedom of the individual and the needs of the collective is a product of large-scale "societies". If you dislike "individualism" and its sordid consequences, blame that which "individualism" is an inevitable reaction to.

ITT: an OP surprised that a board of racists, xenophobes and unironic eugenics enjoyers don't like his ideas about tolerance and acceptance

POV: you are OP and you are still seething: >>15716140

>>15716146
POV: you see enemies and goblins everywhere due to your lack of proper medication

>>15716151
You:
>you see enemies and goblins everywhere

Also you:
>a board of racists, xenophobes and unironic eugenics enjoyers

This is what unironic mental illness looks like.

>>15716153
>can't into post numbers
>thinks anyone that replies to him is the same person
>calls other people mentally ill in a desperate attempt to fend off the impending collapse of his sanity and descent into madness

>>15716159
You're unironically sick in the mind. Clinically. I don't know what else to tell ya, bud. I hope you take your meds ASAP.

>>15716163
Clinically direct yourself to the nearest psychiatrist

>>15716171
Please consult >>15716163 for further help with your emotional emergency.

>>15716175
Please consult >>15716171 and then these nuts for proper diagnosis and treatment

>every thread on /sci/ ends with the same two schizos quoting each other and having e-sex

>the same two schizos are having loud sex in my head for some reason
>doctor pls halp

>>15713350
shut the fuck up

>>15716204
kek

>>15716053
WW1 is the time when it began.
It isn't an inevitable reaction to anything. It's an abnormal, illogical product of corrupt minds.
>>15716140
Individualism has never been about tolerance. It has always been about getting away with primitivism, opportunism, and parasitism. Individualists don't seem to be aware that they parasitize. They see themselves getting better off, but getting punished for it, and think it's only the irrational society that prevents everyone from getting better off, like them.

>>15716265
>WW1 is the time when it began.
Alright, retard.

>>15716319
Not retarded. It's when it began to emerge outside anarchist/pirate/other asocial circles.