this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
72 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

50308 readers
532 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for "beta uprising" until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.

Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.

So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people's energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? "prepare" as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseusβ„’ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.

What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What a stretch! The last time I saw this line of reasoning was from actual holocaust deniers. Did you know that the population of humans has rapidly increased over time?

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Did you know that the population of humans has rapidly increased over time?

whatever your excuse, being vegan hasn't helped.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

you said it helps. i pointed out the proof that it hasn't decreased meat production at all. you made an excuse for why your tactic isn't working.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I see! Maybe you've never before encountered the concept of opportunity cost before. It's something like this: if I don't murder someone on a given day, I'm not actually decreasing the total number of real murders on that day. But contrasted against the hypothetical day where I made the inverse decision, it does. Does that help?

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

so being vegan doesn't actually help. which is what I said.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which part remains unclear? Is it the use of a hypothetical? Specifically, this hypothetical asks you to imagine a world with no vegans. Do you think that, in such a world, there would be more animals killed for consumption or fewer animals killed for consumption, compared with reality?

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have no reason to believe the industry could produce any more than it does, and so no reason to believe it would.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly! In a world with more vegans, fewer animals are killed. Hence, vegans help.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

what do you mean "exactly?" I said your hypothesis doesn't seem intuitive to me. but even more dire: it can't be proven.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

pigeonholing me with holocaust deniers is a hamfisted ad hominem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nothing about you. Just the argument! It's quite plainly stupid, you see.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this is an appeal to ridicule, not a refutation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I already refuted it, but you never addressed that aside from the non-sequitur "What's your excuse?"

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

I didn't ask you for an excuse. I refuted your claim with facts.

[–] commie 1 points 2 years ago

you have not refuted it at all, and I don't have an excuse: I have facts.