The rate of homeless deaths in the US is on the increase.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=BR&channel=fs&ei=TkxHXteBOPvG0PEPt5Si2Ao&q=rate+of+homeless+deaths&oq=rate+of+homeless+deaths&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30l4.356100.361400..362500...0.2..0.200.1900.7j13j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0j0i131j0i273j0i22i30.K4747MBpt8k&ved=0ahUKEwjX4PzgttLnAhV7IzQIHTeKCKsQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

The cause of the rise in deaths, is not famine and a boarder view of the rise in deaths supports the notion that there are limits to growth.

A neoliberal is not a liberal. Google the term. — Noah Te Stroete

What happened in 1980 to bring about this change? Does this have something to do with Reagan and the Texans who got Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush elected? Would another term for this group of people be the Republican Right?

It is very hard to test, because the fact that we are brought up under threats, both social and legal, means that if we are suddenly without these outside forces and potential punishments it is a very specific situation. We are, then, precisely, people who have been under threat, released from threat. A real test would have to be, what happens if people are raised not under threat and have freedom from potential incarceration? Adn the only way to test that would be to take over an island. — Coben

We have the necessary information because of anthropology and the fact that primitive people living on isolated islands can be studied. Primitive human beings on islands with plenty of resources tend to be gentle people who share and are highly moral because it is our nature to want to have social harmony and be a well liked and valued member of the group.

However, nomadic people from the harsh environments such as where mongols live, have a more aggressive nature. Where humans do not have adequate resources and do not live in a Garden of Eden of environment, they are not nice people and tend to think the notion of a god or goddess who takes care of them is absolutely ridiculous. These people are hunters and do not have to consciousness of agrarian people. Genghis Khan and his followers killed everyone in their path and razed the ground so it could return to pasture for their horses, until a man from China who had agrarian consciousness convinced Genghis Khan to 'harvest" the living in settlements and cities. That is to ask for a tribute and allow everyone to live if it is paid. What is important here is the notion of concepts and how the environment shapes our concepts and understanding of life. The Mongols were highly moral people, intolerant of lying and stealing and committed to providing shelter and food to strangers. He thought it was the city people who are highly immoral because in the city lying and stealing are essential part of survival. You want to discuss this?

We also know people become aggressive or gentle because of child rearing practices. Our nature is not exactly what Christians think it is, but is dependent on our environment, resources, and child rearing practices.

Thank you for the links. I actually had the good fortune to work with one of Kahneman's doctoral students for a short while so I'm fairly familiar with his work, but I will take another look. What I was looking for was some support for your assertions about the possible effects of education, specifically that it "is possible to use education to manifest a culture that promotes morality and decreases social problems." I don't recall anything in Kahneman which demonstrated anything of this nature - could you point me to the particular experiment or implication you're referencing here. — Isaac

Oh, ah, that assertion comes from knowledge of the Age of the Enlightenment and development of thinking leading to science and democracy. :lol: Picking through my brain to find the thoughts behind my thinking is a challenge because my thoughts today are a combination of so many thoughts. You know what I mean?

Can we being with the Greeks and the notion that a moral is a matter of cause and effect and science is about cause and effect. Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy or monarchies.

Destroying our environment is immoral because that damage to our planet threatens life on this planet. Native American consciousness was spiritual and animated like most primitive people's consciousness. We might do well to have that consciousness and think of plant and animal life and rivers as having spirits, and then think about the morality of destroying a mountain and streams to extract a mineral. A main objection I have of Biblical morality is it is way too narrow and materialistic and way to dependent on superstitious notions of good and evil supernatural powers, instead of practical, if you destroy the environment or act on the wrong decision, the consequences will be bad. The natives depending on nature had to learn how to live in harmony with nature. I think that is a pretty important concept.

Then there is Cicero, and hey, there is no supernatural being that is going to save our sorry asses. No amount of animal sacrifices, or burning of candles, or incantations are going to make our wrongs right. What happens is the consequence of our actions, and therefore, we better do our best to make the right decisions. Understanding this is essential to understanding democracy and our liberty!

This thinking is also important to our willingness to go to war or not. The US war on Iraq was immoral and the consequences are extremely bad, and it was this war that determined me to bring an end to Christianity. I believe Christians have done so much harm to our planet and the rest of the world, the belief needs to be brought to an end.

Around age eight our brains become physically changed and so does our thinking. This is when critical thinking begins and parents stop looking like gods who should not be questioned. When I hit that age I began questioning religious truths and when a Sunday school could not give me a satisfactory answer to my question, I decided religious folks may not have truth. I reasoned if they had truth, there would be one religion, and so many different opinions of God's truth. Not people going to this church and sure they know God's truth better than people who go to that church. Obviously that meant I would have to study all the religions and determine truth for myself.

I think it is important to study the world religions as you have and I don't anyone can know what Jesus was thinking without also studying Buddhism. The class system of Hinduism and all the strange looking gods are a turn off, but I really like their explanation of being a better human being!

It is very hard to test, because the fact that we are brought up under threats, both social and legal, means that if we are suddenly without these outside forces and potential punishments it is a very specific situation. We are, then, precisely, people who have been under threat, released from threat. A real test would have to be, what happens if people are raised not under threat and have freedom from potential incarceration? Adn the only way to test that would be to take over an island.
I think it is important to understand the difference between eastern and western logic and what Rome had to do with closing our consciousness and making it so materialistic. While Greek logic became more linear than eastern logic. Which goes back to what I said about the importance of knowing Buddhism, because I really don't think we have a good understanding of Jesus without a more eastern perspective.

You do seem to have a well rounded education, so are you familiar with Quabala? (sp?) The off shoot of Hebrew. And I very much regret the lack of my understanding of Semitic languages and their tie to math. I am afraid without that understand we are missing a huge part of understanding. And I hope no one throw stones at me, but I think understand Aztec consciousness is just as important as any other knowledge.

I’m optimistic and think most of us would act morally save for a few opportunists. But then again it would be interesting to see some statistics on whether people abide by laws out of principle or because they fear being punished. — NOS4A2

The South depended on slavery and did terrible things while seeing themselves as good Christians. There was a time when good Christians beat the devil out of their children, and today we recognize that as abuse and know it is very harmful. Christianity without education for higher order thinking skills is not a good thing. Christianity sustained ignorance and mistreatment of human beings for hundreds of years. I would not expect humans to do better without better education.

If by law you mean a legal framework codified and enforced then it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are other moral laws people follow and it's my suspicion that these are invariably religious morals.

Given that the above is true, people can be divided into two categories: Category 1, the religious-good, are those people who use religion as a guide for their behavior and category 2, the legal-good who either have no idea or simply don't care about religion and the only thing that keeps them from transforming into thieves, murderers, etc is the legal system.

If the law broke down or didn't exist then the legal-good would immediately complete their metamorphosis into criminals and chaos would ensue but the religious-good who are guided by religious morals would continue to be good as they were never actually dependent on the legal system.

If this tells us anything, it is that there must exist at least one set of laws to prevent immoral behavior. The legal system just happens to be the first line of defense. — TheMadFool

Looks to me like you want to return to the good old days when Martin Luther thought witch hunters were necessary, and God chose who would rule and who would serve?

Man's understanding of the gods and law is older than Christianity and really the Christian God is not that good. He is jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing, the role model of an abusive husband. He is the same God worshiped by Muslims and Christians and Muslims share more in common than say Mormons and Catholics and Evangelical Christians. All these people worship a god of war except the Quakers who do not refer to the old testament and follow Jesus. While Buddhism and Hinduism provide excellent teachings on morality.

The God of Abraham religions did not give us the highest morals and peace. Democracy and science, with science being understood as knowledge of the universal laws (God), lifting humanity higher than what Christian Europe could accomplish before the age of reason. It is about how to come to know the laws, through the authority of the bible or through science and reason?

The union of our nation that was built on reason, is being shredded! Our liberty is being destroyed and our growing dependency on authority over us is frightening. — Athena


I am not sure how I feel on this. Some days I see the religious "nones" increasing and people generally being more open to (and demanding of) peace. But then the next day, I see the push toward the idea that "all opinions are equal" and wonder if that idea is the death of democracy.

Well, I was expecting to argue a bit more...but I think I agreed with almost everything :up: — ZhouBoTong

:lol: Isn't it awful when there is nothing to argue.

I think our most serious problem is we lost the memory of what science (reason) has to do with over coming evil and what morals have to do with liberty and democracy. This happened because we stopped transmitting the culture that is the foundation of democracy and began preparing our young for a technological society with unknown values- this manifest exactly what we defended our democracy in two world wars because we replaced education for Greek and Roman philosophy with German philosophy and we adopted the German model of education for technology and the German model of bureaucracy that crushes individual liberty and power.

The problem isn't Christianity becauseminterpreting the Bible abstractly brings out the best in it and reduces the problems arising from ignorance and superstition. Because it was Greeks who were the first to write the Christian Bible it is filled with Greek concepts such "the word" or logos meaning reason, made manifest in speech (discovering truth) is the controlling force of the universe. This is why when the Roman and Greek documents were rediscovered and literate people knew Greek and Latin we had the renaissance bringing a love of reason back, and why it could win out over ignorance and superstition and replace the kingdom (a belief in God's will controlling everything) with democracy (rule by reason and the people who can cure disease, stop flooding, and more). But dang, we imitated Germany, and now, we live with the beast that is stronger than ever, and good Christians are thrilled about us being the end of times and proving the Bible is right- belief not reason. They do not see the human decisions that are manifesting our reality and their freedom to make better decisions.

:grin: I sure hope there are comments, questions or arguments to advance this discussion.

Well that certainly provides a potential explanation of a large chunk of the planet not reaching higher levels of moral reasoning. — ZhouBoTong

Nothing makes people more willing to fight for what they believe than the notion that they know the will of God and are fighting for God. In the US both the south and the north believed they were fighting for God, making the civil war a terrible struggle. Germany was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and the Protest Reformation and these people fought terrible wars against each other, with the 30 years almost destroying Germany opening the way for Prussians to take control of Germany leading us to the world wars and finally to the US being the strongest military force on earth with the Christian Right supporting Bush in a war against non Christians, while Muslims fight for their existence against the Evil Empire that is the US.

Allowing the corporate oligarchy to dictate the law and its resulting morality is considered utmost evil in Islam:

The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) may be applied to the secularist: “Wretched is the slave of the dinar and the slave of the dirham and the slave of the khameesah (a kind of luxurious garment made of wool with patterns). If he is given he is pleased and if he is not given he becomes discontent. May he be wretched and doomed, and if he is pricked with a thorn may it not be pulled out (i.e., may he have no help to remove it).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2887). — Sunnah on the problem of prioritizing the corporate oligarchy


While trade and commerce are clearly permitted, all the while taking into account that usury is strictly forbidden, it is not permissible in Islamic law to give free rein to greed.

Furthermore, the believer resolutely rejects a system in which the corporate oligarchy dictates the law with a view on turning greed into the core moral value of society, i.e. a false god, because associating such corporate lawmakers as partners to Allah is impermissible behaviour for the believer. According to the Quran, the punishment for such behaviour is eternal damnation. — alcontali

Thank you very much for this explanation.

If you sincerely want more information google "higher order thinking skills" and read the links that are attractive to you. Your knowledge of the subject would be improved by learning about how our brains work and Daniel Kahneman is the best authority on that. Google "fast and slow thinking" to learn more about that. To clarify, there is are different methods of teaching children how to think, and we can prepare them to be fast thinkers or slow thinkers. Literally interpreting the Bible and basing all decisions on what one believes is slow thinking and the lowest moral level dependent on fear of God's punishment and hope for God's blessing.

The highest moral level can be explained with a pyramid of thinking skills and this is found on the upper right of this page https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Higher+order+thinking+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

So...teaching creationism in bible school is immoral. Or that christ has risen. Or most other bible stories.

I agree with that.

then how come the religious claim that the core of their (and others') moral behaviour is based on the bible?

Are you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sure that lying to children is ALWAYS immoral?
19 hours ago
Reply
Options — god must be atheist

There is an important difference between story telling as Hebrews did to get across a point and teach morals, and interpreting them literally. Hebrews understood the stories as stories and I am not sure why Christians interpreted them literally but it is the literal thinking that is the problem, and not all Christians interpret the Bible literally. Christians who interpret the bible literally are the problem and Texas education promotes this. Teachers took Texas to the supreme court because Christians had forced creationism into science books and were forcing teachers to teach creationism as though the story were equal to science. The teachers won, but still the Texas Republican Agenda in 2012 was to prevent education for higher order thinking. To be clear, the Texas Republican Agenda was to assure ignorance and unquestioning obedience to authority. The political ramification to this should alarm everyone.

What form would education take? Number one, it would return to transmitting the culture we defended in two world wars. Number two, it would prepare everyone for higher order thinking skills. And number 3, would stop specializing students and return to giving everyone a well rounded education with a focus on individual interest and talents.

No more "group think"! and back to education for independent thinking.

↪Athena
What happened in 1958? — Pfhorrest

The establishment of the Military Industrial Complex. The 1958 National Defense Education was only part of the establishment of the Military Industrial Complex but perhaps the most significant part because of the resulting cultural change. President Eisenhower explained the reasoning for establishing the Military Industrial Complex and he warned us of the dangers of it in his farewell speech.

Huh, wasn't Bush a conservative, elected by conservatives and strongly supported by the Christian Right? Why are you lying this wrong on liberals?

I will make a note to return to this thread. Security gaurd said it is lock up time, bye..

Surely the informal social agreements of small populations, enforced by social pressure, is not possible for large populations, but I must argue, education for good moral judgement is vital to our liberty. In is possible to use education to manifest a culture that promotes morality and decreases social problems. The US stopped doing that in 1958 and the cultural change is not a good one.

The level of moral judgement a person attains depends on the person's belief system and education. Now if the belief system explains it is our nature to be evil and therefore there must be authority over the people, then the stage of moral development will remain low.

For the level of moral judgement to increase, there must be education for higher order thinking. That is where a person thinks about what he thinks and is moved to pursue information and expand his consciousness. That is a totally different level of thinking than average Christian thinking, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher order thinking.

Text books in Texas are very much controlled by Christians, however, when teachers protested teaching creationism and having it put in science text books, the supreme court ruled against including creationism in science books and against teaching it as science. That is, at the supreme court level, reason trumped religious belief.

We desperately need to return to understanding what morality has to do with liberty and what education has to do with good moral judgement or the lack of it! the 1958 National Defense Education Act decision to end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church, was a huge mistake! The following social upheaval did improve some things, but we now have a technological society with unknown values and too few people to figure out what our values should be. We have intensified our dependency on religion and that is a problem. That is behind Trump becoming our president and mass amorality.

When the only God is an impossible to believe God, the nation is split between the believers in that God and non believers. The union of our nation that was built on reason, is being shredded! Our liberty is being destroyed and our growing dependency on authority over us is frightening.

I want to support your statement by adding to it....A sign that our democracy is falling is that we no longer understand that democracy is rule by reason and it is our responsibility to take part in that reasoning. Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. If we understood democracy is rule by reason, Trump would not have a chance of being re-elected. But I am afraid the majority is Christian, believing God chooses the person to lead us and that our prayers help this person gain God's support in being a good leader. The US does not have rule by reason, by rule by faith in a religious mythology.

This thread is about democracy, so who understands what democracy has to do with family? — Athena

Because population growth has a lot to do with family.

And Michael Lee basically argued in the OP that Democracy won't solve the huge problems humanity is facing (written in the Limits of Growth), especially when the democracy is electing people like Trump, i.e. when we elect "candy store clerks" and not "doctors" who will solve the problems.

My argument was that this isn't so simple and the idea of our society being on the cusp of total collapse is an exaggeration. Starting from the fact that Limits on Growth should not be put on a pedestal, but viewed also critically, even if lot of the observations are correct. — ssu

Ah you said nothing of what families have to do with democracy. Without an understanding of what family has to do with democracy, we do not have an understanding of democracy. That is a social and economic problem.

Why do Americans claim to have a democracy when in fact they are most autocratic not democratic. Religion, the military, and industry in the US, are all autocratic and the swing to stronger and stronger autocratic control of the government is a sign of the fall of the democracy.

What is neoliberal consensus? Is this the same problem almost every country in the world is facing, or is it special to the US?

Our consciousness can be very selective. I think it is unconsciousness of others that leads to serious social problems. Those who enjoy abundance have no understanding of the poor and the poor lack understanding of those who enjoy abundance. If the poor thought as the well off think, they would be well off too and visa versa. Males lack the experience of being females and females lack the experience of being males. We only know what it is like to be the race we are but we do not experience being different race or a different ethnicity. It is quite obvious Christians process thoughts differently from non believers or they wouldn't disagree so passionately. It would be wrong to speak of consciousness as something we share in common.

Or as a prisoner once wrote me, "You can think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad until you eat". We can have sympathy for others, but not empathy unless we have had the experience of the other.

I think you have described the evolution of patriarchies, but I think before patriarchal civilizations there were matriarchal civilizations. Patriarchies do seem to advance technology much more than matriarchies, so it is unlikely we would have the civilizations we have today without patriarchies.

↪Pfhorrest
Logos means word. I did not know that. Sharing information is very important to the survival of many species. Words are the most effective means of sharing information. Words are culture. — ovdtogt

Not all cultures survive. Cultures can self destruct, or at least loose the competition for survival.

And It hardly matters that the model used in Limits of Growth predicted death rates to rise because of resource scarcity putting population levels to fall starting ten years from now. Of course the Club of Rome can be quite correct of the Population growth reaching a high point and then getting smaller very soon, but that is because of wealth and prosperity, people voluntarily choosing not having children. Not because of wide-scale famine. — ssu

And how are we to understand homeless and the death of homeless people exposed to the elements and prevented from sheltering themselves? I would say predicting a rise in death rates was accurate and our blindness to what is happening is a serious problem.

I don't know if it is good or bad news that increasingly women are choosing careers over becoming mothers, I just know many women who are old enough to be grandmothers are disappointed by their son's attraction to women who do not want children, and therefore little chance of them being grandmothers. I think this is about status and changed values, following declaring women who choose to stay home are "just housewives", devastating the status women once had because of who they married and their domestic skills and caring for family, and being civic leaders in charitable organizations. Who wants to be "just a housewife"?

This thread is about democracy, so who understands what democracy has to do with family?

I think education has a lot to do with shaping our values or lack of them and our consciousness in general. In the US we stopped educating for democracy in 1958 and began education for the Military Industrial Complex. In 1958 we ended education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church as Germany had done. A huge mistake! This week I shared a hot tub with a Christian man who was gleeful about global warming and the end of life as we know it. As many Christians he believes what is happening is God's will and that something wonderful is about to happen. I repeat, leaving moral training to the church was a very bad idea!

Socrates did not 'hate' Democracy in much the same way Nancy Pelosi stated she does not 'hate' Donald J. Trump. I think she hates what Democracy has become and he is mostly responsible for it. — Michael Lee

I want to argue,Trump is not mostly responsible for the culture change the US has experienced but he is the consequence of cultural change brought on by replacing our liberal education with education for a technological society with unknown values and our constant state of religious competition and Christian control of education, especially in places like Texas. We have largely replaced Greek philosophy with German philosophy, and adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education, and we have manifested the conditions that brought Hitler to power. Trump is our Hitler not the cause of cultural change that got him elected in the first place.

I can not imagine anyone dismissing the importance of information on the internet. My concern was the cultural importance of books, especially the classics , or as I mentioned books of government documents, and I didn't mean to attack what you said, but only to raise awareness of the importance of books and the difference in information found in books or on line. Books may be found on line and really I should put a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Conference on line and perhaps others books that raise awareness of schools being used to mobilize the US for WWI and WWII because I think that is important to our understanding of the development of education and cultural change. The internet is a wonderful tool, but how much thought are giving to the information and how it is presented and culture?

That appears to be a good explanation of the gang problem in some cities, the instinctual desire to belong and have status in the group.

Isn't the end the cause of the next thing? We could passively kill the homeless just by denying them the right to meet their human needs, or more overtly kill all the Jews, and lynch the Blacks to resolve the immediate problem, but that is not where things stop is it?

I'm accusing you of willful ignorance. — Galuchat

That is an offensive remark isn't it? What good can come out of offending people?

Some of you appear to take yourselves very seriously. This seems to have become a cultural problem as it was Nazi Germany and I no matter how important you all are, that is not a good thing.

Phantasies are ok if they give you predictive power, but what do you do with a theory which gives you nothing to measure and no way to confirm? — Zelebg

Disneyland. I do not mean that after Disneyland is made manifest, it can not be measured and confirmed, but that it would never happen without free flowing fantasy. To deny free thought is to atrophy our ability to create and that is not a good thing. Not only would that atrophy thinking but it sucks all the fun out of life and that is deadly.

As a field, Aether has mathematical structure and dynamics, but no material structure. Math is pure immaterial Information. So any physical field exists by definition, not in terms of matter. I can call the universe an Information Field, which, like a Quantum Field, has the power to convert Virtual Potential into Actual Matter. I know this way of looking at reality is counter-intuitive, but so is queer Quantum Theory, which is the foundation of modern science, and we'll have to get used to it — Gnomon

Exactly what is this consciousness conscience of? I think there is a connection that is matter, but not a connection that is thought. Sort of like God may know the number of hairs on my head, but not what I am thinking.

Is it possible the universe is conscious?

So will IA come to understand humans better then men understand women or women understand men?
Is having information the same as having a sense of meaning? Can neural network math produce a sense of meaning?

I see, now. I wasn’t really ignorant of how we got by without the internet. It was in response to the idea that the internet is the library of human knowledge and therefore essential. — Brett

I think we need to understand how books are different from the internet. Come to think of it, what information would a robot find important? What motivation would a robot have for understanding humans? Technological information can be devoid of the humanities. Books are written for people interested in humanity. The quality of the books and therefore the culture, matters. The internet just isn't the same.

Interesting point, this is something I have considered. All the people I know who are sceptical of climate change, or the appropriate response to the warnings from climate scientists, are over 70 years of age. It is about 75% of them. All the people I know under the age of 70 are fully onboard with the agenda as suggested by Bitter Crank, for example. Notable are every person I know under 20 years of age.
Indeed right across Europe, a young person who is sceptical on these issues is a great rarity. I expect, but don't know, that there are a portion of the younger age group in the US, who are sceptical for some reason. Is it the case do you think, that there is more scepticism on this in the US than elsewhere?
29 days ago
Reply
Options — Punshhh

It depends on the children's education. In Oregon our schools are educating children about climate change and the children have become politically active.

Climate change and weather are not the same thing! Global warm is not about hot days, which would be about weather. Global warming is about climate, meaning that our planet is hotter then it was. The climate in which weather happens has changed. I don't think the average person gets that.

how did we develop the world we live in without the internet? — Brett

With books and this did not becoming really meaningful until the west learned about paper and printing from the east and the books were made available to all those who who could afford them and eventually libraries made them available to even those who could afford them. Books spread knowledge in a away the internet can not. To find anything on the internet you have to know what you are look for and even then it may not come up on search.

For example what did Theodore Roosevelt say of women when the US mobilized for the first world war and how did schools support the war effort? This is human information that may not interest a robot. :grin:

t's probably a useful idea but the internet is the library of human knowledge. I feel like it is important but perhaps less than I assume. — Lif3r

Oh my goodness is that idea wrong. You will not find the valuable information that is in old books such as the series of books recording the early congressional debates of the US, nor the encyclopedia written by Theodore Roosevelt on line. You will not find an explanation of what education had to do with mobilizing the US for WWI and WWII on line. At least not if you don't know that is something you want to look for.

The O of U library had a department of books containing government documents and anyone could access them and just browse the books looking to see what is in them, such as the letter Eisenhower wrote praising the German contribution to the democracy, and without that little piece of information it is not possible to understand how Germany changed the US. I am saying there is important information in books that people will never know about because the books are no longer available. There is a digital record of them but you have to know exactly what information you want to get to it. No one is free to just browse the books and discover what is in them. We can not access information we know nothing about without the books to browse.

:lol: How old do you think I am?

What do you think we should be doing now? Personally, I am in favor of doing what I can do. My sister is taking college classes so she has a better understanding of the problems and what we can do. She suggested the things we could do and I just passed them on. I think sharing information is important, don't you?

I really don't know what you mean by an existential experience. As of the end of this day, I am homeless. Thankfully I know this is only temporary, and I have resources so I can put most of what is important to me in a storage shed and my medical insurance provides a pass to gyms so I can feel rich soaking in hot tubs and I can shower. At the moment my survival seems a little more important than having an existential experience.

However, it is possible everything is going as planned. That is, the mass of humanity on earth and all the things that are happening are part of a higher plan. You know the New Age thinking. This is the dawning of the angel Aquarius, a time of peace and high technology and the end of tyranny. The mass of humanity could be the result of souls being reincarnated just before a major transition. We can thank the tarot cards, and the Pyramid of Gisa, and the bible, and Aztecs, all speak of the end of times. Is that thinking having an existential experience?

I don't get it. Why would robots make anything better? What happens to the humans? If life is not good for humans what is the point?