Wow. You realised you describe the age of Colonialism so well. Just the same model in today’s world. Pack up your bags and settle in some land inhabited only by natives you fundamentally need not care about. Take it from there. — apokrisis

First of all, colonialism is about forcing your views onto the indigenous population. You are not in that position as a digital nomad or nomad capitalist. You just need a place where the ruling mafia will leave you alone. It is not about oppressing others but about avoiding getting oppressed yourself.

Secondly, there is nothing in the doctrine of zakaat (mandatory charity) or sadaqah (voluntary charity) that says anything about which nationality is supposed to be its beneficiary. Every nationality is suitable for charitable action.

In fact, the digital nomad lifestyle is considered eminently halal:

https://digitalnomadbrothers.com/blog/post/faith-on-the-move-navigating-halal-travel-as-a-muslim-digital-nomad

Exploring the challenges and solutions for Muslim digital nomads, this guide offers insights on locating Halal food, keeping up with prayers, and ensuring one's travels never compromise their faith. Discover how to harmonize your nomadic lifestyle with the principles of Islam.

In the end, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty.

There is nothing in the digital nomad lifestyle that forces you to violate the laws of our beloved Lord.

This is normal because you are free to do as you please as long as you do not overstep the few guardrails with which our beloved Master has defined what behavior is forbidden onto you.

So the thing when it comes to politics is to recognise the fact and use it to your best advantage. You don’t want to waste time trying to erase hierarchical order. You want to understand it well enough to use it to achieve your goals. — apokrisis

Exactly!

Karl Marx did not erase hierarchical order. His communists merely created another one.

Any attempt at erasing inequalities will simply lead to other inequalities to the benefit of the small core demographic that has successfully managed to monopolize political power.

Political power itself cannot be abolished. It will always exist because that is simply human nature.

"There will always be winners and losers, so stop talking about making it better" — Moliere

You cannot make it better for everyone but you can certainly make it better for yourself, by going where you are treated best.

As a digital nomad slash nomad capitalist, I do not care if the ruling oligarchy increases taxes in a particular jurisdiction, for example, because it never affects me.

Most political decisions are irrelevant to me because I can just choose another jurisdiction where they made another political decision.

Freedom from harassment by the oligarchy is possible. It takes effort to achieve it, but in my opinion, it is definitely worth it.

Just because the universe is inherently logical and computational, that doesn't mean it's not also mysterious, or should I say, miraculous? — ucarr

Even if the universe turns out to have a theory, this theory will almost surely be incomplete and therefore be able to predict just a small fraction of its facts. So, there is indeed ample scope for mysteries and miracles.

When you say logic and math aren't about anything at all, do you extend this application all the way to include the internal consistency of logic and math? Hasn't Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem rocked the houses of logic and math because it charges them with essential incompleteness? Doesn't this charge undermine their internal consistency? — ucarr

In the formalist view, mathematics is just about string manipulation.

Even though a mathematical theory -- if it is capable of arithmetical string manipulations -- cannot prove the consistency of its own string manipulations, it does not mean that these string manipulations are necessarily inconsistent.

Doesn't the claim the first-order formalisms of logic and science will always generate statements internally unprovable open a wide fissure down the middle of formalism? Haven't you cited this as the crisis in math? — ucarr

There are true strings that can be expressed in the language of an arithmetic-capable theory that cannot be generated (from its axioms) by means of legitimate string manipulations in the theory.

This incompleteness does not contradict the formalist view that mathematics is just about string manipulation.

By the way, formalism is just one possible view on mathematics. Platonism, for example, is also a perfectly sustainable view.

A formalist view on science is that it is just about experimental test report production. If you can produce such report about the claim, then it is science.

We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal. This it is unwise indeed not to aim at Utopia. — Chet Hawkins

Utopia is possible only if other people also strive for it. They won't. It is not useful to be bothered with what other people do. You can only control what you do yourself.

A legitimate moral rule is such that you still benefit from keeping it, even if everybody else breaks it. It allows you to create a personal utopia for yourself, regardless of what anybody else does.

The ancient moral rules of the nomadic shepherds are exactly like that. They do not require anybody else to follow them, for you to benefit from these moral rules.

Modern moral rules are not like that. That is one of the many reasons why they are not legitimate. They tend to dwell on all the "rights" you have. True morality is not about having "rights". True morality is about the obligations that you voluntarily accept.

The economy ought have more democratic means of making decisions to include all stakeholders in a negotiation. — Moliere

The term "democracy", "rule by the people", is in and of itself already nonsensical because in reality a country is always "ruled by the oligarchy".

This is a matter of simple geometry.

There is always a hierarchical top to society where all the political power accumulates, and therefore, also pretty much all the wealth.

Efforts to make the populace believe in the always-fake democracy are very bad for the people that they are supposed to serve. You are just bamboozling them a bit more.

It is simply not possible to prevent the concentration of political power and therefore of wealth.

However you wish to interpret the relationship of the Torah to the Quran, they are clearly not "the oldest moral codes" as you've claim (and they are derivatives from pre-Mosaic/non-divine sources). — 180 Proof

We are talking about nomadic shepherds who were not yet embroiled in the nascent depravity of farmer society. There are older codes but these people already had cities surrounded by farmland. They cannot be trusted because in their case the ongoing degeneracy had gone too far already.

Our very best bet would actually be the morality of the hunter-gatherers. As I have already mentioned previously, these hunter-gatherers could not read and write. So, they were unable to transmit to us their moral rules.

The nomadic shepherds were still close enough to the original hunter-gatherers, and they could apparently read and write in order to transmit to us the true moral rules of humanity. In my opinion, in practical terms, that is our best bet.

• Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
• Sharia (Quran) 632 CE — 180 Proof

According to Islamic doctrine, the Quran is a retransmission of the Torah+Gospel without alterations (especially alterations to the Gospel). The two sides of the equation are not supposed to be (substantially) incompatible.

Good timeline, but it was the move to make the code of ethics attributed directly from a singular God of the Universe, who wants humans to act a certain way, that is the innovation (aka ethical monotheism). — schopenhauer1

The idea is that the true code of ethics is preprogrammed into our biological firmware ("provided by God").

Unfortunately, we grow up in the filth of a degenerated society which indoctrinates us into adopting dangerous deviations to our true biological firmware.

If we assume that societal degeneracy and depravity only go upward, the earliest written snapshot of society and its moral rules will give us the most accurate record of what morality is supposed to be.

In fact, we would be better off with a snapshot from the hunter-gatherers that we once were, but they were not able to read and write. So, even though they knew the proper biologically preprogrammed moral rules, they were not in a position to transmit them to us.

If you wait -- later in history -- until people have already become farmers, their society may already be too degenerate to provide us with a usable template.

The Torah is a snapshot of a society that was somewhere in between hunter-gatherers and farmers, i.e. nomadic shepherds. Just like the Torah, the Quran sticks to early nomadic shepherd morality.

So, if you are somewhat aware of the fact that you have inadvertently adopted the filth and degeneracy of contemporary society, and you want to know the truth about our biological firmware and what the true moral rules are that we are supposed to follow, then you can use these ancient scriptures to reprogram yourself away from modern degeneracy, filth, and depravity.

I guess it is a matter of Value; the arts are concerned with subjective value that nevertheless approaches pure abstracted ideas of beauty and such (feelings/impressions) whereas the sciences are concerned with objective value that can be formulated into an abstract 'meaning' (equation). — I like sushi

There are fields that are a tightly meshed combination of both, such as architecture. A good number of architectural rules have been experimentally tested for safety. Still, subjective aesthetics have always been a major consideration in the construction of new buildings. The same can be said about the design of cars or any consumer product.

Regarding my thesis, going forward from what you wrote above entails assessing whether experimentation is modally existential, with the hows and whys of the details of an pattern involving existing things being ancillary to the modally existential process of experimentation. — ucarr

Yes, it means that science is an epistemic domain governed by a justification method. It really does not matter what exactly it is about as long as the justification method of testability can successfully be applied.

The same is true for mathematics. It is the epistemic domain governed by the justification method of axiomatic provability.

The humanities, on the other hand, are not an epistemic domain. They are a (collection of) subject domain(s). The humanities are generally about human behavior.

By the way, some claims about human behavior in the humanities can actually be experimentally tested -- even though this is most generally not the case.

This means that a purely formalist view is perfectly sustainable in mathematics and science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)

In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality.

According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

Science is not about something. Science is actually about nothing at all.
Mathematics is not about something. Mathematics is actually about nothing at all.

On the humanities, a formalist view is not possible. The humanities are always about something.

The sciences are concerned with “what,” whereas the humanities are concerned with “how.” — ucarr

If you can experimentally test a stubborn observable pattern, then it is scientific.

In all other cases, it is something else.

The humanities are generally about stubborn patterns in human behavior.

The humanities are often able to successfully observe stubborn patterns, but human behavior is generally not testable. You can often still do observational studies, though.

In my opinion, the key distinction is testability.

The impossibility to test is not just a problem with human behavior.

Imagine that you have a theory about the birth of solar systems. Fantastic, but how do you test the creation of a solar system? So, how do you create one? Hence, no matter how well your theory matches observations in the universe, it will never be science.

Another example is the medical claim that the HIV virus causes AIDS. Fantastic, but how do you test this claim without deliberately injecting lots of people with the HIV virus? Hence, it will never be science either, if only, because your truly scientific experimental test report would land you in jail.

In a well-regulated egalitarian society, it's quite easy. It's not even hard to have to have consensual intimate relations or protracted marital commitment without progeny.

Many men are perfectly fine with casual sex, friends with benefits, or situationships with zero commitment.

In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better.

But then again, that approach does not work particularly well outside the West.

Unlike in the West, women over here generally do not want to provide sexual-tension relief services free of charge. They expect something in return and they typically want children as well. All in all, their approach works better for me, because on the long run the service is much more reliable. If they keep getting what they want, I also keep getting what I want.

How does not being forced to procreate equate to getting something for nothing? — Vera Mont

If a woman does not want to reproduce, she can easily achieve that by not making any deal or arrangement with a man. It is really not difficult to do. What is there so hard about staying alone?

a BETTER valid philosophy, that is not based in religion and encompasses all morality. — Chet Hawkins

The history of society is one of growing degeneracy and growing depravity. You cannot even trust yourself because all of us grew up in the degenerated filth and got indoctrinated by it. The oldest record of the rules of morality is undoubtedly the most usable. You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran.

The best system to avoid concentration of power is democracy. — Benkei

A democracy still has a ruling oligarchy. Political power still concentrates in the hands of the few in power. The ruling mafia still ends up with the excess income and excess wealth.

It is not possible to change the inevitable geometry of society. A society has a top where the political power is located. A society has a bottom with a restless, gullible, and eminently manipulable populace.

It is an illusion to believe that the voting circus will make any difference to that.

I am not interested in improving anything.
I simply go where I am treated best.
I vote with my feet instead.

I do not choose to stay in any of the so-called democracies of the West. In all practical terms, everything else turns out to work much better for me. Vietnam is supposedly an autocracy. Well, I would choose Vietnam any day over any of the so-called democracies in the EU or North America.

Seriously, I do not care if a country is an "autocracy" or not. If I get treated better over there, then that country is better for me. There are currently around 40+ million digital nomads, and growing, and pretty much none of us choose to stay in the so-called western democracies.

the crux of his work is how to ensure the benefits of economic activity doesn't concentrate in the hands of the few — Benkei

These benefits predictable started concentrating in the hands of the apparatchiks of the Soviet Union.

Political power always concentrates in the hands of the few in power, i.e. the ruling mafia. Political power always translates into accumulating economic benefits for the ones who have it. All excess income and excess wealth will end up exactly there. So, Marx successfully replaced the bourgeoisie by the apparatchiks of the communist State.

Humanity could also evolve into an asexual style. If we all decided that was cool, we could force nature that way, because plentiful evidence exists to show that is possible and still produces thriving species. — Chet Hawkins

In my opinion, reprogramming the biological firmware of humanity will result in something full of bugs, i.e. contradictions. The likelihood that reproduction will still be functional, is close to zero.

And this is your idea of a good society? — Vera Mont

In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me.

But then again, there are enough western men nowadays simping in the friend zone of an entitled boss babe. It is called "simpflation". The only male authority that these men have ever known is their single mother. That is why they gravitate towards bossy masculine women to duly bully them around. I am sure that you can easily find yourself that kind of feminized little man-bitch to domesticate and exploit ad libitum. If so, more power to you!

So, yes, for a lot of men, a "good society" amounts to getting the opportunity to simping around in the friend zone. I wish them all the best from SE Asia!

Most are probably willing to fight for what they deem as 'good'. — I like sushi

Yes, it is better to provide them with some good excuse. If it sounds somewhat reasonable, they will go for it. Provide them with uniforms, weapons, and training, and watch them ruthlessly kill the enemy. They just love it. They will see themselves as heroes.

I agree that motivating people for war requires good spin doctors. A good spin doctor is undoubtedly worth more than a good soldier.

Why should women in a good society need men to 'provide for' them? — Vera Mont

In the West, men have heard women loud and clear. That is why men don't provide anymore. If you manage to provide for yourself, fine. If not, then also fine. That is obviously not our problem, is it?

Every member of a society has obligations, but they do not include submitting one's body to another's will. — Vera Mont

It is "My body my choice." versus "My wallet my choice." If I do not get what I want, why would I give you what you want? If you don't like the deal, then you bring your body elsewhere, while I bring my wallet elsewhere. Simple, no?

It is pointless to make a deal with someone who just wants to take, take, take but in fact does not want to give anything in return. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Outside the West, there are still lots of women who eagerly want to exchange favors. They want a man to provide for them, while the man wants sexual access. The traditional pattern still works like a charm over here. You give something, you get something. You can't just take, take, take, and give nothing in return. On what planet is that supposed to work?

There is far less war today than 100 years ago. We have been gradually becoming more stable. — I like sushi

I don't believe that.

Sovereign nations will always fight each other. It is a side effect of being sovereign. There is no referee for conflicts between sovereign nations. If there were, these nations would not be sovereign.

The way you put your point across you made it sound like if you looked out of the average window you would see death and pillaging on at least a yearly basis. This just doesn't happen anymore in most corners of the world. — I like sushi

The current situation is not better than in 1924 or in 1824:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conflicts_in_2024

I believe that it is preferable to accept the truth about war. It is simply in our nature. If there is no reason for war, we'll conveniently invent one. Furthermore, there is an infinite number of unsettled disputes patiently waiting for their turn to erupt into bloodshed.

Just because we have an aggressive element to our psychological make-up it does not define who we are. War is something we do, it is not anywhere near a defining part of the vast majority of human lives today. — I like sushi

We introduced specialization thousands of years ago already.

On the one side, the farmers were sick and tired of roving gangs who stole their harvests. On the other side, not everybody wanted to fight. Some farmers just wanted to farm. So, in exchange for a share in the harvest, the farmers appointed their own gangsters to take on the other gangs.

If we don't do any of the fighting by ourselves, that is because we pay other people to do it for us. Someone has to do all of the killing required to protect the harvests. Apparently, it is just not you. In that case, you instead pay for someone else to do the killing for you.

You see things a bit like people who eat enjoy eating a steak but who swear that they would never kill an animal.

Yeah, but that is because you pay someone else to do the slaughtering and butchering of cows and other ruminants.

I personally don't have a problem with that. I am perfectly aware of the hidden truth behind the sizzling juicy steak on my plate. We are clearly carnivore. We kill other animals to feed on. So, if need be, just give me an axe, and I'll do what it takes to unceremoniously finish things off.

Human males do not crave war. If this was the case there would be more war. — I like sushi

The world is continuously at war in various places. Wars don't really stop. They just shift location. There are wars going on right now. We conveniently ignore them because we can.

Packs of wild dogs fight with each other for territorial hunting rights and mating rights. Prides of lions do that too. As humans, we are good at inventing feeble excuses for doing exactly the same.

As history has shown we are more prone to negotiate to prolong our survival because mutually assured destruction is just that. — I like sushi

Of course, we negotiate too. But then again, war is deeply ingrained in our biological nature. We will simply never stop doing it.

establishing universal reproductive rights for women — Vera Mont

As long as society agrees that men have no obligation to provide for women who only recognize that they have rights but do not accept any obligation, everything should be fine. If women have no obligations, then men shouldn't have any either. Everybody rows his own boat, while people with only rights and no obligations cannot sit in mine.

He claimed his work was scientific. — Moliere

According to modern standards, it means that Marx would have experimentally tested his hypothesis.

It is thanks to people like Marx that Karl Popper finally investigated what the term "scientific" means:

https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

Science as Falsification

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred.

It is the investigation into why Marx' work is not scientific that led to the modern epistemology of science. Marx' work is one of the canonical counterexamples.

Should we obey the law? Why should we obey the law? What laws should we obey? — tim wood

Our sense of justice is part of our biological firmware.

Civilization corrupts it, though.

Therefore, the best reflection of what is preprogrammed in our biological firmware, are the laws of the earliest societies for which we have records.

You can find this law in the Torah and the Quran mentioned as God's law.

While God's law is meant to bring justice, man-made law always aims to justify injustices to the benefit of the ruling oligarchy.

What is law? An imperative established by the community. — tim wood

No, true law is preprogrammed in our biological firmware.

Whatever else happens to masquerade as law, are rules meant to further the interests of the ruling mafia.

Or a simpler view: unjust law is like a dog that bites, or worse; a hazard and harm to the entire community. — tim wood

Therefore, it is necessary to unite behind the understanding that man-made law is just the product of the ruling oligarchy meant to benefit only themselves.

It is necessary to combat their attempts at overruling the sense of justice built into our biological firmware.

In religious language, it is God who has provided us with our biological firmware. We must never allow the ruling mafia to associate themselves as partners-lawmakers to God.

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely. — kindred

I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate wars entirely, just like it will not be possible to eliminate the mating season in which male animals fight over mating rights. Lions and other predators will also remain territorial forever and prevent other predators from hunting in their territory. Competition over territory and females, i.e. the very origin itself of war, is simply built into our biological firmware. Civilization is just a very thin veneer on top of the brutal truth. Male animals crave war.

Options available at the bottom of society. — Vera Mont

Options on the internet are exactly the same wherever you are. People in rural Zimbabwe have the same options as you. That is why the internet is the great equalizer.

Most people copy other people. They are not capable of charting their own course. That is one major reason why they run around in circles. It is not that opportunities do not exist. These people are just not interested in them. They will only get interested in them when they can copy someone else seizing exactly that opportunity. This is not a problem related their poverty. This is a problem related to their incapacity to be self-directed. That is also why most people can only work for other people. They would not be able to work for themselves because they strongly prefer to wait for someone else to take the initiative.

In fact, this is normal. Humanity naturally operates in groups, i.e. roving gangs. Humans have a preference for following the leader, not as badly as cattle does, but still markedly so. That is why most people are employees. Most people will always be. They are uncomfortable being self-employed. They are uncomfortable building a business and employing other people. It is simply human nature. In humanity, maybe one person out of ten is self-directed. That is already better than with cattle, where I suspect that at most one out of hundred is.

All you need is faith? Get real! — Vera Mont

You misunderstand how it works.

Of course, it is not just because you believe that you can do it, that you necessarily can. However, it is certainly because you do not believe that you can do it, that you cannot.

You are probably waiting for someone, in order to just copy the details of his winning strategy. The problem is that he is not waiting for you to copy him. It would benefit you, but what's in it for him?

And that wonderful lifestyle is open to all the 712 million people who subsist under $2.15 a day.
Not one frickin' clue! — Vera Mont

That is not a particularly fair question.

So, for a starters, according to you, people should not seek to improve their own lives because there are other people who are poor? So, in your view, everyone should be poor, because that is only fair, and that is supposedly going to help the poor. Misery loves company, I guess?

In my opinion, it works exactly the other way around.

It is only by improving your own life first that you could ever get into a position in which you can help others.

Furthermore, the internet is the great equalizer.

https://loadproof.com/internet-as-the-great-equalizer/

Internet has enabled smart, intelligent, talented people all over the world. It has created a door for those who aren’t in large metropolitan areas and first world countries. Anybody with a computer and an internet connection could become an entrepreneur and participate in the global economy. The internet enables wealth to flow from higher levels to lower levels and make things a little more equal.

The internet does not bring equality of outcome but it does bring to an important extent equality of opportunity. Of course, this won't be true for people who do not believe it. If you do not believe that the internet is an endless source,of opportunities, then it obviously isn't ... for you.

So, what are your thoughts about this situation? Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans? — Shawn

They are trying to find in drugs what they could also find in spirituality, if at least they tried.

Just don't get seriously ill. — LuckyR

A medical bill here in SE Asia is typically a lot cheaper than your copay in the US or in the EU.

Even with the most generous insurance, you will still pay a lot more out of pocket than me.

Pharmaceutical products at the pharmacy are typically a hundred times cheaper here -- the market is dominated by generics -- unless you are into expensive brand names.

But then again, even brand name products are much cheaper than in the US or the EU. Global pharma sells their products at less than half the price here -- Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and so on. I simply pay a lot less than you for exactly the same stuff. Just Google for the illegal "Canadian pharmacy online" industry and look at their rock-bottom prices. Here, it is even much cheaper than that, and by a lot.

Furthermore, we get a lot of medical tourism over here.

People flying over from the US or EU to get their teeth fixed, or to get surgery such as a knee or a hip replacement at one of the private hospitals, because the total bill -- including airplane tickets and hotel -- will be much lower over here.

If there is one place in the world where you do not want to get seriously ill, it is the USA. You will probably go bankrupt, even when you have complete insurance cover. It is in the US that sick people are doomed, not here.

https://www.medicaltourismco.com/medical-tourism-in-mexico/

Cost of Medical Procedures in Mexico

You can really benefit from the affordable healthcare in Mexico. On average, medical treatments here can be up to 80% cheaper than in the US. Whether you need dental work or bariatric surgery, you'll find more budget-friendly options in Mexico.

Plus, the quality of medical services in Mexico is just as good as in the US.[4] Want to know the medical tourism Mexico prices for your desired treatment? Take a look at the table below!

You have no frickin' clue, have you? — Vera Mont

If you don't know how to pull it off, you may want to spend $13.99 on the introductory Udemy course:

https://www.udemy.com/course/how-to-become-a-digital-nomad-work-from-anywhere

How To Become a Digital Nomad & Work From Anywhere

Requirements

- A desire to live and work from anywhere on your own term

Description

= Discover the complete A-Z resource for becoming a highly successful digital nomad in this 16 hour online course.

= Learn how to live and work from anywhere in the world while having time to adventure, explore and have more fun.

(The world has rapidly changed, job security is no longer real and the opportunity to work online is greater than ever before)

$13.99
Original Price$19.99
Discount30% off

The digital nomad lifestyle works out fine for a lot of people:

https://andysto.com/how-many-digital-nomads-are-there/

The Number of Digital Nomads: Exploring the Statistics

According to data collected by Nomad List and published in 2024, the numbers are much higher. They estimate that there are already almost 80 million digital nomads worldwide.

According to Enterprise Apps Today, in 2023 there were 35 million digital nomads worldwide.

I am confident that most digital nomads face at least some challenges in order to make it work. But then again, that is exactly what life is about: overcoming even difficult challenges.

I would have thought Chiang Mai would be more like $800 a month. I guess people on that site are from US and want large space to live in or something? — I like sushi

The site actually admits to being somewhat subjective:

https://nomadlist.com/faq

What is the source of your data?

It started out as a crowdsourced spreadsheet.

That spreadsheet held about 25 cities. That was a great start, but crowdsourced data has by nature challenges with consistency. For example, some people have a more expensive taste than others and will tell you the rent in a city is higher than the actual average.

In fact, their cost-of-living index may barely be any better than the notorious Big Mac index.

Price inflation measures (CPI) are also somewhat subjective. They are based on a basket of goods and services that may be significantly different from your own, if only, because there are compelling political incentives to manipulate that basket.

The site does not elaborate on the nationality of the people they crowd source their data from. Therefore , I guess that the nomad list data reflects some kind of nondescript "average".

I roughly benchmark their findings against my own recent personal experience. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia do indeed have a substantially lower cost of living.

China cannot be even vaguely thought of as an atheist country. — AmadeusD

There's also the official policy on religion in China as well as the persecutions ("anti-religious campaigns") in recent history and even till this very day:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

Since 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially state atheist, has been in power in the country, and prohibits CCP members from religious practice while in office.[7] A series of anti-religious campaigns, which had begun during the late 19th century, culminated in the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) against the Four Olds: old habits, old ideas, old customs, and old culture. The Cultural Revolution destroyed or forced many observances and religious organisations underground.[8][9]: 138  Following the death of Mao, subsequent leaders have allowed Chinese religious organisations to have more autonomy.

I consider atheism in countries like Sweden -- which in theory is higher -- to be way less of a problem because it is not enforced by means of an official state policy.

That much!? — I like sushi

There's marginally cheaper, still:

- Pokhara, Nepal, $789/month
- Makassar, Indonesia, $875/month

So, yes, in theory, you can go bargain hunting for the last dollar to save on living expenses.

I can't be bothered, really.

Places that are rated below $2000/month are very noticeably cheaper already. You start getting a lot of bang for your bucks.

Okay, so then France will welcome all 4000 of us? — Vera Mont

France may not be the right place to go to. France is itself deeply mired in a cost-of-living crisis, just like most of the West.

At https://nomadlist.com you can find an apples-to-apples comparison of how much it costs to live somewhere. Examples:

- Chiang Mai, Thailand, $1020/month
- Barcelona, Spain, $5217/month
- New York City, $6989/month

The same income that puts you at the bottom in one place, can put you at the very top in another place.

Another issue that makes the problem even worse, is that in the location where you live, the local ruling oligarchy may take away 50-70% of your income, often even before it reaches you.

There are solutions for that problem too. For example:

https://taxhackers.io

Become tax-free as Digital Nomad in 4 weeks

Did you know that most digital nomads traveling the world do not have to pay taxes, but still do it? Free yourself, join us.

Jurisdiction shopping as a digital nomad can improve your finances by a factor ten or more. It can move you from the bottom to the top of the local income ladder.

Both the cost-of-living crisis and the crushing tax burden are problems caused by the local ruling mafia.

So, choose another ruling mafia, and go where you are treated best.

Except China is not the most atheist country. — Lionino

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population)[as of?] with China alone accounting for 200 million of that demographic.

In absolute numbers, China has the largest number of atheists in the world. There are countries with a larger percentage of atheists but the actual number of individuals is always a lot smaller.

You didn't read it, did you? — Lionino

He "explains it all" in just two of the chapters.

His pseudo-intellectual theory on the Jews:

- VOLUME I. A RETROSPECT. Chapter XI. RACE AND PEOPLE

Why he was going to go to war with Russia:

- VOLUME II. THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT. Chapter XIV. GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE

The rest is boring. I fell asleep too often. So, I stopped reading.

Kind of like I should be impressed with Jeffrey Dahmer. He set out to murder and then eat people, and by God he did it. What's not to like? — Hanover

https://aspectsofhistory.com/when-stalin-robbed-a-bank/

When Stalin Robbed A Bank

The story of Stalin's other career

Stalin knew it would require great daring to pull off such a coup. He also knew he would need the help of a dependable gang of fellow criminals. These were easy enough to find in Tiflis: Stalin had already been involved in previous robberies and had a trusty band of individuals whose services could be called upon. The robbery was meticulously planned. Twenty heavily armed brigands loitered in the city’s central square, awaiting the arrival of the carriages.

It wasn't Stalin's "other career". He just kept going!

The poor and afflicted have options? Other countries welcome them? — Vera Mont

It probably requires some usable skill, i.e. something even modest to make a living from. Totally unskilled is a problem. But then again, in just a few months time, you can for example become a licensed truck driver. That should allow someone of even modest means to move abroad and find gainful employment overseas, but maybe not in SE Asia. In countries with a somewhat more developed economy, it could work. It also depends on the passport that is available to you, because getting a work permit can be an issue in itself, but not necessarily everywhere. There are solutions but people who are pessimistic will not see these solutions but only see everything as one big insurmountable problem.