So, in other words: which of your core beliefs do you think has the highest likelihood of being wrong? And by wrong, I don’t necessarily mean the exact opposite - just that the truth is significantly different from what you currently believe it to be.
That people’s ‘default’ morality is ‘good’.
It isn’t. It is actually pure apathy and only do we get taught, groomed, learn, decide, etc. about morality.
If that is true, then some people are actually ‘better’ and ‘worse’ than others. If so, then my entire outlook on human life will need to change. Don’t know to what, but that is the existential threat.
Recently had to come to the conclusion, that even though I have never ‘tried’ to learn, observe, or otherwise be smart, that I am well above average intelligence to those immediately around me. This is beyond infuriating. How can I be ‘better’ than everyone on average without even trying? It infuriates me to no end.
Felt this in my gut. I couldve written it. Ive had to recalibrate my entire framework for humanity as of late. My best lense has been through developmental psychology. What you frame as morality, I have come to the conclusion that most folks never develop into full grown adults. Its a childs morality. When I realized I was surrounded by children in adult bodies all the pieces fell into place. Its quite isolating. Anyhoo, best of luck with it.
That climate change won’t wipe out humanity. I firmly believe we’ll survive, but it will be a massively devastating event, like 1/3 of the population will die. I think the equator will probably become uninhabitable, but more northern or southern land will become more like the equator. Maybe I’m wrong though, and we won’t survive. Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see any advanced space faring civilizations.
but the way you describe climate change makes it sound like it’s going to be a specific event on a specific day. it’s gonna be a slow boil that takes place over hundreds of years there’s gonna be lots of time to move populations. Huge migrations are gonna take place and all the while humans are gonna continue to reproduce. I don’t think you’re gonna see 30% of the human population wiped out. over the course that time the losses will be negligible due to the rate of births.
I didn’t mean to make it sound instant, but I don’t think it’s going to take hundreds of years. I think it’s more on the order of decades. The deaths I’m talking about will come from things like floods, famines, hurricanes, heat waves, etc.
climate change has already started. It started 30+ years ago. We’ve seen the increase in hurricanes, the tornado alley expanded, increased conditions of drought etc… Yes, there may be specific incidents like the Atlantic currents stopping to function over the course of decades, but the full effect of climate change will be over the course of 300 to 1000 years.
New and fun communicable diseases has entered the chat.
tying that to the climate changing is kind of loose. unless you’re going to equate the increases of population density in certain areas adding into the already large issues we have in that regard. New and communicable disease diseases tend to come from close interactions with humans and animals, climate change may exacerbate that but over population is what really drives it. additionally, three out of the last five or six pandemics over the last 150 years are believed to have come from lab leaks.
I’m not aware of a single pandemic that “came from a lab leak” unless you’re talking about abject morons who think COVID19 was a lab leak.
To your first point:
German intelligence just last week released the report claiming with 95% certainty that Covid came from the lab. There’s been multiple articles in Reuters and sources about it. i’m not gonna go through and get all the research and site sources for the lab leak in the early 70s that came from the Soviets butGoogle around you can find it.
They’d have to have evidence in either of those two cases that the labs in question ever kept these virus and there is not. One eye witness. One document. I’d also accept research showing that a significant number of the initial cases could be traced to workers at a specific lab. There is nothing like that. It’s pure speculation and the reports you cite admit as much.
The Republicans in the US House came to the same conclusion as to COVID. They are lying.
Within one or two decades, the exact family of bats in the exact cave where SARS CoV2 (COVID 19) originated will be irrefutably identified, just as it was with SARS CoV1 in a cave in Yunnan, China. As with both of those two viruses, most of the initial cases were in food handlers in China or people adjacent to food handlers, not in lab workers. The lab leak hypothesis is asinine, based on nothing more than racism.
yes buddy it’s just racism. Everyone hates the chinks…
That there’s no such thing as too much inclusivity in LGBTQ.
I don’t think people who want to pretend to be dogs or cars or whatever inanimate object they fixated on as a child are harmful to society, but they have proven to only delegitamize actually real gender identities that are being actively erased in the real world.
I don’t care if people want to wear collars and shit in litter boxes because that makes their brains happy, but I do care when those people show up in public places wanting to be treated with the same seriousness as actually marginalized minorities and get LGBTQ movements laughed out of the room.
That we can build a sane, rational society.
yeah, that’s never gonna happen. even if a socialist ideal is ever reached, there will always be strong man with weapons. Humanity on a large scale is super fucked. Keeping things local and small is the only way, but how do you protect yourself against the big bully across the river with a nuclear bomb… Who fucking knows…
That people are fundamentally benevolent to one another. Obviously it can be trained out of you by circumstance, overcome by self-interest, and mental illness is a thing, but I think people innately care for one another. It’s why dehumanization is the first step to committing atrocities.
But if someone offered proof that I’m wrong that might be the least surprising thing that happened all week. And if I’m wrong, the evil-doers are sub-human and should be culled without mercy until I am right.
The evil-doers are sub-human and should be culled without mercy until I’m right.
I know what you mean but that sentence is really funny when 1.5 sentences earlier you said “it’s why dehumanization is the first step to commiting atrocities” haha
It’s the intolerance paradox in action. It’s like tolerating cancer. Cancer is a living thing, it doesn’t mean you respect it and let it have its way with you without interference. Same principle.
The intolerance paradox is an explanation of fascism, not a rebuttal.
It demonstrates the motivation: destroy those who pose a danger to our way of life. It allows us a justification to do to others exactly what we accuse them of doing to us.
We’re coming for the Nazis today, and nobody is stopping us. Who are we going after tomorrow?
It was intentional irony.
That people are not wilfully stupid. The last 10 years have proved people will act against their own benefit if TV tells them to do it.
That people can change through conversations. It’s tough to accept, but most people only change when forced to.
I’ve noticed 2 types on this, stick-in-the-muds and peak-hunters.
Stick in the muds latch on to the first version of a belief they encounter properly. They will stubbornly hang on to that for as long as possible.
Peak hunters are the opposite, they will rapidly change beliefs to maximise the results/find truth.
Interestingly, after some time, the 2 groups look almost identical. The peak hunters tend to find the ‘best’ version of their belief, based on their existing memeplex. To budge them, you need to show a different belief is better, on their rankings (not yours). This is hard when they have already maximised it. Without knowing how they are weighing things, they can look like stick in the muds.
The biggest tell is to question why they believe what they do. If they have a reasonably comprehensive answer, they are likely peak hunters. Stick in the muds generally can’t articulate why their belief is better, outside of common sound bites.
I understood this and think it’s accurate.
People or beliefs?
I’ve changed my mind many times based on online discussions.
Beliefs. I’ve changed my mind too, but it seems to be the exception.
I can’t think of any that I’d be particularly surprised by at this point.
I don’t think it could be anything I expect. Most of the things I have consciously evaluated about myself I’ve come to a conclusion based on rational or empirical evidence, so I am certain either in my knowledge or ignorance about a topic. Most of the time when I’ve been proven wrong it’s about a belief I imbibed as a child and never questioned or considered until then.
The way I landed on all my current beliefs was taking in information from as many places as I could and I decided on what I think is right.
There are a ton of topics that can’t have an objectively correct answer which makes things fairly complicated.
That all living things are worthy of my compassion. If the millions of conservatives out there somehow prove me wrong… then all attempts at civilization are doomed to collapse and we’re reverting back to feudal times.
Would be interested in a list of past facts that turned out to be wrong.
Government of the people, for the people, by the people.
The earth is flat.
My deepest core belief is that there is a non-zero likelihood (which may be quite high) that everything I think I know about the world is wrong.
If it was proven to me beyond a doubt that something I know is undoubtedly correct, I would probably think that there was a possibility that the proof was wrong and go on with my day.
The world is a simulation. Everyone you see is just an AI construct. WAKE UP
/s
Why try waking them? The system’s just going to repair itself. They go on believing the TRUTH is false.
Why, oh why didn’t I take the blue pill?
Relevant user name?
For me it would be that while lies are in many cases morally justifiable.
My current belief on this is that lying is never right unless you’re literally using it as a form of self defence as an alternative to physical violence. However, I also tend to believe that absolute beliefs are virtually always wrong, and these two are conflicting beliefs. I can atleast think of a few extreme scenarios where a white lie seems justifiable even when you’re not in danger. For example: a dying person showing their painting and you complimenting it despite not liking it.
