Do you know how Nietzsche's use of "ego" compares with Freud's? — frank

No. The best I could do is a Google search and pull a quote or two. like: Freud bought Nietzsche's collected works, but he felt that Nietzsche was more to be resisted than studied. Apparently Freud felt that Nietzsche's ideas had the potential of deflecting his (SF's) thinking in a direction he didn't wish to go.

Whether what I just parroted is true, false, or not even wrong... don't know.

overpsychologizing the subject is happening here. — Posty McPostface

Can a topic in psychology be over psychologized? Interesting concept.

In your discussion with Praxis several terms are getting mixed together. Ego has a particular meaning in Freuds psychodynamics. The Ego mediates between the life-urges of the Id and the society-oriented Superego.

Karen Horney asserted that low self-esteem leads to the development of a personality that excessively craves approval and affection and exhibits an extreme desire for personal achievement. According to Alfred Adler’s theory of personality, low self-esteem leads people to strive to overcome their perceived inferiorities and to develop strengths or talents in compensation. Along the lines of Praxis' question, if someone has low self esteem and presents as a very needy person, is that their 'real' identity? A lot of people are needy, domineering, or manipulative their whole lives; it's hard to suppose that needy, dominating, or manipulative isn't who they are, at some point.

"Identity" is a front-burner issue just now. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia says that "...both contribute to a self that is not a unitary construct comprising only the individual as he or she is now, but also past and possible selves. Self-knowledge may overlap more or less with others’ views of the self." and "The origins of the self are also manifold and can be considered from developmental, biological, intrapsychic, and interpersonal perspectives. The self is connected to core motives (e.g., coherence, agency, and communion) and is manifested in the form of both personal identities and social identities."

Mostly people use and understand these words 'loosely'. But sometimes it helps to reflect on the recent (20th century) history of the terms. "Ego" is transactional, not a thermometer of self esteem. Are the distortions of low self-esteem (per Karen Horney or Alfred Adler) a person's real identity?

Just a thought.

I have not used "adaptation" as a casual concept or trivial matter. Adaptation to global warming is more like moving heaven and earth: very difficult.

All of the adaptations that have been talked about by those who take global warming as a fact involve wretched choices. For instance, Bangladeshis will be among the first very large populations to be inundated by rising oceans. Where will a few million Bangladeshi's go? Who will welcome them? How stiff will the resistance to their migrations be?

Where will the small, scattered island populations go? Which nation is eagerly looking for a few hundred thousand climate refugees?

What happens in tropical and sub-tropical areas when it becomes too hot to spend more than a few hours outside? How will those areas feed themselves? (This will include some parts of the southern US, where high humidity and high temperatures will place a hard limit on outdoor work. If the humidity and heat are too high, outdoor workers die of heat stroke.)

Adaptation will not be like rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. It will be more like a fight for the available lifeboats and then a fight over where to go, what to do, for those in the lifeboats.

So yes, we are fucked and no one who isn't being highly disingenuous and monstrous can say "We'll have to adapt" as a response to that. — MindForged

What, pray tell, is the alternative to adapting? One can throw one's self off a bridge, take poison, or blow one's brains out OR ADAPT. Resistance is futile. You will adapt.

OMG foreign 'invaders'! Gotta kill them — MindForged

Never mind foreign invaders. Does the staid midwest really want all those interesting people back who left for sunny and liberated California or the sophisticated culture of the northeast? Better start blowing up the freeway bridges so they can't just pack up and drive back here.

↪frank Fucked in the way climate science forecasts. I am not going to paraphrase it here for you - go read about it if you really want to know (or fuck off if you are here to troll). — SophistiCat

Not what I would all a sophisticated response.

The hackney's slogan "think globally act locally" applies to climate change, and on the local level there is some (but not overwhelming) reason for optimism. Some of the the big states are actually doing quite a bit to tackle the transition to renewable sources of electricity. California is in the lead, but even Texas has a lot of operating wind generation. Small population states like Minnesota are making good progress in wind/solar generation.

None of it is enough, of course, and there are irrationalities all over the place. If any city/state could transition to solar, it's Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona has clear skies 300 days a year, but the political machine in Arizona is against building solar generation for it's largest city. Why? Because the powers that be are invested in the existing natural gas plant. Phoenix depends on the Colorado River for water and it takes a dedicated (coal fired, of course) power plant to power the pumps that are required to lift the water over the terrain.

Places like Phoenix will probably become unsustainable in the not too distant future; the Colorado River is over-subscribed and the reservoirs are shrinking. Thanks to all that bright sunshine and climate change, Arizona (and Phoenix) is hot and dry.

Without abundant and affordable energy, much of the world's population is unsustainable. Where would cities like Chicago be without heat in the winter? What about Houston in the summer without air conditioning? Much of the world's housing has been built with the proviso of affordable energy.

Have you considered selling sex toys door to door? I'm pretty sure you would meet at least a few people that way. You would at least have quite a few interesting stories to tell later on.

"Good morning, Ma'am. Is your old dildo ready for a retread? How about a turbo-charged vibrator? Perhaps I could interest you in this irresistible pheromone that is guaranteed to draw men! No? This penis enlargement pump works on breasts too. Here, let me demonstrate..." (door slams in face; or worse, she pulls you into her house).

If that doesn't work, you might consider joining a monastery. Avoid the kind that observe long silences. Benedictines seem to be quite social, especially if they are running a college or something like that. (By the way, are male-to-female transsexuals allowed to be come nuns?)

One of my less successful gay relationships was with an alcoholic ex-Benedictine monk--part of the Polish diaspora. He had been in the order for... 8 or 9 years. Didn't take final vows. Life in the habit didn't seem all that restrictive. He was a mean drunk. Maybe his exit from holy orders was somewhat less than voluntary.

careful what you wish for.

One reason young people settle down is that the 'frivolity' of their youth can get tiresome. Getting drunk the first time is novelty. 50 times later being drunk isn't quite so amusing.

Another reason that people settle down around age 23 to 25 is that's about the time, give or take 15 minutes, when people's brains are finally developed fully. They are now working with a full deck. 18 years olds are sometimes extremely responsible, sensible, mature people; but usually not so much.

When one settles down partly depends on time and place. When I was 25, gay liberation was just getting off the ground. As a young gay man, I was more than willing to participate in the holy orgy kama sutra that was underway. I liked the sex and politics of gay lib, and the good times rolled on till about 1990 (for me). So, i was past 45 when I started to settle down -- less sex, less drinking, less etc.

Why did I settle down then? Well, opportunities for convenient and reckless fooling around were diminishing. I found I had less energy than I did earlier on. Newer and more pressing responsibilities were arising.

In someways I didn't settle down. I didn't become conservative as I got older. I have sped up my rate of acquiring new information (reading, studying more). At 72 I'm still reasonably physically active. I admit that some areas of study (like politics) are much less interesting now than they used to be. Where religion was a live topic when I was young, it is now a dead duck. I find science and history much more interesting now.

But... you are right about many people: By the time they are middle age (let's say 40 to 45) they are pretty much done. They coast the rest of the way out.

I don't view it as hypocrisy; I am, rather, grateful that she isn't depending on god to cure her physical ailments or drop a bag full of money in her lap. Most theistic believers could reasonably say that while god can solve any of our problems, but they apply their own minds and energy to the solution. (God helps those who help themselves...)

People can hold incompatible ideas in their heads; one can completely accept the science behind global warming, even feel personally responsible, BUT take many long flights which add quite a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere on their account. People buy lottery tickets even though they know the chances are 300 million to 1 (or worse) against them. Lots of people know how to steal, but they don't because they also want to feel they are honest. Or more to the point, they have stolen, but still feel like they are honest.

As Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind."

If you want to make friends, then you have to hang around with other people: actual, face-to-face warm-blooded mixed-bag people. Your recent experience should give you a clue: you found the pastor who visited you a nice guy. Maybe he was fulfilling his job description; maybe he really cares. I don't know the guy, so I can't tell. But churches are open to strangers and generally churches are welcoming. Not all of them, of course.

Some newspapers have run regular "church reviews"; the reviewers always find that some congregations are friendlier and more welcoming than others.

I'd try a church group. They tend to have the lowest barriers to admission (as a stranger). You don't actually have to believe everything they say (for best results, don't declare it all bullshit right away, or out loud.). Pick a church that has a coffee hour after church. That's usually a good place for low key socialization. Adult education talks by guest speakers can be good too.

I'd avoid churches associated with fundamentalism, right wing politics, and the like. They tend to be much fussier than mainline churches, but liberal churches can be kind of fussy too. Don't try one church and then give up because it wasn't a great experience.

Find a volunteer activity. Give to get. Volunteering in an organization can be a very effective way to find people to connect with.

Does NAMI (National Alliance of Mental Illness) have support groups in your area? Support groups can be quite helpful, and sometimes one can meet people there who are very likable. Sometimes hospitals run support groups.

You will have to get up off the couch and go outside to find other people. Sorry, I don't know of any home delivery services for friends.

One of my sisters is an extremely doctrinaire fundamentalist Baptist Trump fan. I'm pretty much her opposite. We both come from a large family where none of this sort of thinking was encouraged or typical.

I would describe my sister's thinking as double tracked: On religious and political matters she is governed by strict ideology. It's a closed system: one can not engage in argument with her on these matters. On practical matters (money management, medical concerns, auto maintenance, general news and information, etc.) she is practical and rational. She doesn't rely on God to solve medical or financial problems. She's rationally thrifty and pro-active in medical affairs.

Both of us are senior citizens; major changes in thinking at this point in time are very unlikely. But major changes in thinking are always hard to achieve, even for one's self--let alone somebody else. Our very different thinking has been heading in opposite directions for... most of our lives, actually, and getting "better" or "worse" depending on who is making the judgement. I'd say she is politically and religiously worse now than even 5 years ago. (She declared me hell-bound decades ago.)

Ditto.

Excellent.

America First and the rest doesn't matter.

It is not difficult to parse the logic of Donald Trump:

1. Forget about logic.

2. Trump can rely on the permanent government continuing to function; he is free to impose his not-very-deep not-very-smart very-low-brow politics on the politically appointed parts of the government.

3. The very-low-brow portion of the electorate (20% to 25%) have found their prince: someone who heaps derision on everything they have long disliked but have been too disunited to jeer openly. Trump plays to that audience.

4. Consistency is the hobgoblin of thinking governed by integrity. Trump doesn't have that problem. He sees no problem in denouncing mail bombers in one sentence, then turning on a dime to repeat exactly the kind of inflammatory comments that inspired one certifiably antisocial mail bombing Trump fanboy.

5. Trump did not create his core electorate. These are an enduring sector of the population occupying a dismal swamp of "the old time religion". Their roots reach back well into the 19th century. They tend to be low-mobility working class; conservative (of course); religious; morally rigid. They are the classic crackers, hicks, hillbillies, economic losers.

6. Trump has helped his core electorate latch on to a more politically conscious view of themselves. Of course their new-found consciousness was torqued for the purposes of an opportunistic politician who does not belong to his important core demographic.

7. Trump has been aided by the Republican's Party's continued transition toward immoderate positions.

It always helps to take a long term view. The US has seen waves of anti-immigration, racial hatred, ruthless manipulation of the electorate, fundamentalist religion, extreme-right wing politics, and so on ever since the latter quarter of the 19th century. That along with periods of extreme economic inequality (the Gilded Age) and episodes of endemic waste, fraud, and abuse. Following such episodes there tends to be a movement back toward some sort of center, sometimes sliding into left-wing territory (like the New Deal some 80+ years ago, or the Great Society 50+ years ago). Back and forth.

What's the upshot?

Stay tuned.

All of the observers in the stands will be vaporized.

No corporation currently has 'sovereign' status, as far as I know; so in one sense, any sovereign state is more powerful than any corporation. Sovereign status without material resources to enforce their sovereignty make for supine states that serves as the handmaidens of corporations. The classic example of this was "the banana republics" of Central America (O Henry coined the term) United Fruit Company and other large food corporations dominated the several republic to an extreme degree.

On the other hand, corporations are far more mobile than states. A corporation or wealthy person can move their resources out of the US, for instance, and put them in tax havens like Panama or Bermuda (or Switzerland, the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). UK isn't a banana republic, exactly, but it makes a lot of money handling the funds of entities that are fleeing legitimate taxation. (People flee the UK to shelter funds from the Crown (QE2).

So... some corporations are more powerful than some nations.

Uncle Karl says "The state is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie." In modern parlance, we'd say the state is the servant of the corporpation and of very wealthy interests. So, despite having a nuclear arsenal, the US Government has permanently spread its legs for the convenience of corporate interests, like oil, coal, banking, pharmaceuticals, lumber, real estate, railroads, steel, ocean shipping, and so on.

@Wayfarer

Bias
/ˈbʌɪəs/
noun
inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against black applicants"
synonyms: prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favouritism, unfairness, one-sidedness; More

verb

cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
"readers said the paper was biased towards the Conservatives"
synonyms: prejudice, influence, colour, sway, weight, predispose; More

Since you are swilling gin and tonic and typing on your iPhone at a bar [pub], I presume you copy/pasted the definition from the web.

Drink responsibly. If you 'aspirate' your gin and tonic, you'll have a severe coughing fit.

I looked up "bias" in a 1981 and 1992 printed dictionary; the earlier definition conforms to Noble Dust's usage. The later definition is closer to Wayfarer's, with a Usage Note, which mentions that 90% of the Usage Panel approved [a usage akin to Wayfarer's]. Bias now applies with some specificity to racial prejudice.

Obviously a biased definition. Fie upon them.

FIE: Used to express disgust or outrage. ‘Alas, my lord, that you should confuse your bride with another. Fie, I say!’

Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin fi, an exclamation of disgust at a stench.

Or are you talking about the capacity to discern a person's character just by looking at them? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, no. Not character. I do not think one can identify someone's character at a glance, or even through a little casual interaction, such as a fairly simple financial transaction. Judging character takes time, I think.

This gaydar thing doesn't reveal very much about someone, other than that they are exhibiting certain subtle traits. [And what all those subtle traits are, I would be hard pressed to list.] Gaydar doesn't tell one what the guy is like, whether you will like them, and so on. Spotting another gay guy in a crowd of straights means one can at least pursue the possibility.

When the gaydar fails it could turn into a gay bashing? That precariousness scares me. — Metaphysician Undercover

As well it should. Of course, proceed with caution. But actually, it's not all that risky if one uses common sense. There are people I wouldn't approach for so much as the time of day, even if I had a stack of affidavits stating that they were definitely gay and available.

Scan with gaydar? — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, is "gaydar" not known everywhere? Gay radar or "Gaydar" is the mystical ability of gay men to recognize each other at a distance based on nothing more than a glance. First-glance ID is fairly accurate, but if in doubt, one looks twice or thrice. With firm confidence, one can consider asking the guy if he'd like to fuck and where would he prefer going. So you go there and a good time is had by all and sundry. Later on you might ask him his name. Or not.

IF one is quite mistaken, a situation of intense conflict might ensue, the outcome of which may be a more refined sense of how precarious existence can be.

If all this doesn't make sense, just RSVP and I will happily explain it all in excruciating detail.

these folks are actually mistaking their car — Nils Loc

I hope they are not actually mistaking their car for a person. If they are, they need to see a neurologist on the double (see The Man Who Mistook a Hat for His Wife, by Oliver Sacks, neurologist).

I've met a few soulless meat robots.

No "The mistake" is supposing that a machine -- like a computer -- can be a person, can be an intelligent, aware, being. This is still mostly a projection into the future. Otherwise, getting overly attached to one's car, one's bicycle, or roller skates is just setting one's self up for disappoint when the car gets dented, the bicycle gets run over (without the rider being on it, one hopes) or one skate gets mysteriously lost.

or imagine being beige among the mauve, or being puce anywhere.

Being among a large hostile red crowd tends to squelch my lavender pheromones, but it stimulates cortisol, so... one thing is down, something else is up. I prefer to pick a fight where the odds are not overwhelmingly bad.

At this point in life (old age) I mostly welcome the opportunity to validate my gay identity where I can scan with gaydar, flirt a bit and feel a little jolt of interest. Where I need a vigorous argument is on political grounds, to validate my leftist political identity.

we don't make them earn a living. — Andrew4Handel

We tried to make our dog contribute to household income, but she was unwilling to get to work on time, pay attention to direction, observe break times, and so forth. Actually she was quite successful as a greeter at Walmart, when she was on the job. Retrievers are kind of made for that sort of work. But then she would wander off, sniffing around the meat coolers, stealing pot roasts and eating them raw right on the floor... People objected.

We found it was easier to just let her spend the day sprawled all over the couch (except when she was rushing into the kitchen whenever she heard certain sounds connected with food she liked--crinkly plastic, the apple peeler, the can opener...). She was a good exercise enforcer. She didn't like it when she was denied a 90 minute walk.

Once an identity forms, it becomes passed down generationally and elaborated upon. A fresh dose of contest may be required to dust it off and rejuvenate it. Verbal contests might just be the cheapest form of energy injection.

Can you see any of that in the verbal contests you enter into? Or not? — frank

Absolutely.

Larger identities (like, "Scandinavian", "Anglican", "French" (especially French), are inherited. Some identities like "millennial" or "hippy" are rather foamy identities without too much substance. And identities benefit from the refreshment of conflict, and again I am not speaking of combat. Someone who really identifies as an anarchist or a socialist or a syndicalist in 2018 is going to need to reargue his case periodically, because there is so little in current society that would positively reinforce such an identity. Gay men, on the other hand, don't need to argue their case, because we can live the identity.

Actual combat experiences forge new identities among the combatants. Strenuous political campaigns can do the same thing. But these kind of experiences can't be arranged. One signs up or is drafted, and somebody else is in charge of the war or the campaign.

We'd be spoiling your thread to continue a discussion of socialism here; there's Tinman's thread on socialism and Fdrake's thread on Marx's value theory if we want to pursue the topic.

By the way, it was Salvador Allende who was the democratic socialist in Chile; General Pinochet was a run of the mill South American dictator after Allende. The US helped kill Allende in 1973.

The vigor with which you seek interpersonal conflict — frank

People do seek interpersonal conflict. I think it is a critical piece of individuation. However, by 'conflict' I mean verbal contest. Debating, arguing, strongly disagreeing. It might be the case that in arguing you convince someone of your point of view, but at least for young people the principle benefit is convincing one's self of what one believes, holds dear, thinks is right, or wrong, and so forth.

a command economy must necessarily prohibit. In order to design production, a command economy must tell people what to do, when to do it, and cannot stand dissent of any kind - because the State manages production. — karl stone

The USSR was a command economy sometimes described as "state capitalism". What the hell does that mean, you ask?

In state capitalism there is one corporation: the state. The state corporation runs industry, commerce, politics, religion, whatever there is to run. That is not "socialism" or "communism" as Marx defined it. It's just a totalitarian society. Marx described a system where all the institutions of capitalism (including the state) were replaced by a bottom-up system of social management.

The American socialist Daniel DeLeon felt that in democratic countries violent revolution was unnecessary and counterproductive, Rather, use the machinery of democracy (unionized work force, the ballot, political organization, education, etc.) to prepare the citizens to assume political and economic control of society.

Marx expected the bourgeoisie (the owning class) to inadvertently prepare the working class to take over the management and operation of production. How would this happen? By workers doing more and more skilled management type work. Employees perform most of the work involved in both managing and running British companies. Per Marx.

Of course, the owners don't expect the employees to take the company away from them. (That happens when the socialists are in power; the ownership of industries, capital property (like office buildings, warehouses, etc.) and so on are transferred to the employees of the companies. The primary task of governing a non-capitalist, socialist society is deciding economic matters: what to produce, how much, where to get the raw materials, and so forth, under the guidance of "production for need".

So and and so forth. I don't expect to convince you that this is what should or will happen. Now, the UK is not the US. Our political and class systems and history are quite different. Workers in the US have tended to have harsher experiences than workers in the UK have had, at least under the post-war labor governments. The same goes for much of Europe, which has had a longer history of social welfare programs than the US.

The US has done a much better job than you Brits of camouflaging the fault lines of class differences. Both the UK and the US have a ruling class, and an overlapping very wealthy class. Most American workers have been taught to not see class. That 5% of the population owns more wealth than the rest of the population is unbelievable to many Americans. Credit that to pervasive miseducation. Americans have drunk the kool aid that "Anyone can get rich in America." Your are poor because you just didn't try hard enough. ETC.

It is always important to keep things in perspective. Bad things have been happening in the United States for a long time. Fifteen presidents or former presidents have been shot; 4 didn't survive. We had a vicious civil war. We've had all sorts of violent vigilante groups like the KKK come and go. We've had lynchings. We've had mass murders. We've had several morally compromised presidents. We've had disgraceful business affairs. The list goes on and on. None of these came close to sinking the ship of state (save the Civil War).

Trump is very bad, and bad things are certainly happening in America. There is a long list of things going on that I don't like. You seem to feel this way too. What to do?

Engage in politics: send money; vote; support groups that are doing good things; do what you can on a local level (because that's where you are, and that's where you can do something). Be vocal about criticizing Trump, and the swine that are running along side him.

Pray for Mitch McConnell's brain aneurysm to burst (he doesn't have to die, just become severely aphasic -- no language capacity at all). He's as big a threat to the country as Trump. While you're at it, there's several hundred people in Washington who could benefit the country by losing their capacity to use language. Add the Koch Brothers to your prayer list. (God is busy, so... keep the list reasonably short -- less than 500.)

Well, Schop, I've said several times in several places in the Forum that I believe the universe has no inherent meaning. It expands in all directions and will, as far as we can tell, continue to do that forever. Whether our species suffers excessively, should suffer more, should suffer less, or even whether our suffering is significant is a matter of supreme indifference in an indifferent universe.

Quite singularly on this planet, we are able to give things meaning -- rocks, shoes, trees, stars, flowers, fish, etc. -- including ourselves. We can also deny that things have meaning. You find the quite real suffering we experience meaningless. Meaningless suffering has no purpose. The species that suffers meaninglessly has only one out: extinction. Therefore antinatalism.

I do not view suffering as a good, but I also do not consider suffering to be inherently meaningless. It can be granted meaning. Meaningful suffering is no reason to give up on the species or the universe. Quite the reverse: Our suffering is a very small part of the unfolding life of this planet in the universe. Our lives, our suffering, our world has meaning because we can, we have bestowed meaning on them.

I can not ask you to change: You didn't choose to feel suffering as meaningless, to feel life as meaningless, and to see extinction as a desirable end. I didn't choose my position either, (Didn't Schpenhauer say that we can not choose what we want?) I can't choose your position; you can't choose mine. I may be able to understand your position, but I don't agree with it.

I'm not avoiding the question: I'm rejecting the answer you are looking for.

In the fullness of time, our species will most likely be extinguished. We will be extinguished because we were no longer capable of adapting to new existing conditions and as a species we "failed to thrive". "Fail to thrive" is med-speak for dying. We will die out. Our meaning and our suffering, our pleasures and our joys, will be over and done with. Whether our departure from existence comes in a couple of centuries, a millennia, several millennia, or in another age... we don't/won't know until the end is quite close.

I actually try to avoid anthropomorphizing; animals have their own raisons d'être; they don't need ours, and we quite often infantilize animals as well as anthropomorphize them. So we really ought, and we really can, make connections with other creatures as other, and not an extension of our beings.

As a socialist, it's not my job to defend capitalism. "We have not come to praise Capital; we have come to bury it." I do not believe that capitalism is compatible with continued human existence into the next century. Despotic dictatorships are also not compatible with human life, whether they pay heed to Karl Marx or Adam Smith.

Scrooge McDuck vs. exquisite epistemic theory... Indeed capitalism could do more; much more. People like the Koch Brothers and the whole oil/coal industry are doing their capitalistic damnedest to do much much more.

Don't get all fragile and guilt ridden at this stage of the game. Enjoy your upper hand while you still have it. The brown hordes are on the move.

As a rich gay WASP I bask in the knowledge that my exalted position in society rests securely on the overburdened backs of oppressed peasants. (As well it should!) I really wouldn't have it any other way. [aside... "Hey, you fucking peasants, stand still!] And of course neither would the peasants of color and especially the peasant women. They rejoice in their wretched state of servitude, believing that the last shall be first, and that imperialist sexist fascist gay WASPS are over due for their comeuppance. Well, rah rah cis boom bah!

We have heard rumors that the oppressed riff raff at the bottom of the heap (where they belong) are becoming bitter and resentful about we benevolent overlords sitting up here having peak experiences at their expense. Does it matter? We have been good to them. They are not starving, actually. Many of them are from the fried fish belt and desperately need a raw oat and water body cleanse to get rid of all that lard they have been sucking up with their PCB-flavored catfish. Plus they smoke inferior substances and it stinks! Quite disgusting. At least we aren't required to endure seeing all the way down to the bottom; that would be just totally disgusting. Keep them in the dark, please.

Satire alert.

My master premise is that people are not walking around thinking that life is suffering. If they do recognize that there is suffering in life (there surely is), they do not believe their suffering is so great that they should have no more children.

A derivative premise is that people like being alive pretty well.

But the 10,000 foot view question is... — schopenhauer1

"At what altitude does hypoxia and antinatalism set in?"

"The envelope please..." rip... "and the answer is, '9500 feet'".

Come down, come down.

There is no reason that I know of to suppose that socialism can, will, or should result in some sort of rigidly defined "equality". What? Should everybody have exactly the same kind of underwear? How does that make sense? Everyone should get exactly 32 ounces of extra sharp aged cheddar cheese per year? Everyone gets exactly 175 square feet of indoor space? That kind of equality isn't worth the argument, let alone not being worth a revolution.

People should be equally entitled to what they need and equally entitled to utilize their talents. Under this formula there will not be equality of production and consumption. Talents, abilities, physical energy, and environment varies too much to require equality of production. Needs vary too: A ditch digging man needs more calories every day than a bus driving woman. A scientist needs different infrastructure than a musician. Etc. Etc.

The only perfect equality that exists on earth is in the grave.

If we eschew brute force methods, (there are plenty of historical examples) and instead use a bottom-up approach to building the infrastructure of socialism (starting with militant unionism) and ending with a peaceful transition to a worker owned society (probably over a period of decades) we will have defined what "socialist equality" means by the time we achieve it.

Why should people living under advanced capitalism decide for some future socialist society what "equality" should mean?

We will get the kind of socialist society that we work for. If we use organization, education, democratic political tools, and continual worker engagement in the process, we will get something better than if we use either brute force methods or the top-down dictatorship approach.

Ursala LeGuin, a popular sci-fi writer, developed the idea of a rigidly egalitarian society in The Dispossessed. It's a very good novel. She imagined an extreme form of egalitarian anarchism, a project that I would consider more difficult to achieve than socialism.

There is such a thing as human nature, and any political system that intends to succeed by dismissing the inherent characteristics of human beings is doomed to failure. We are somewhat plastic, somewhat malleable, somewhat educable, and so on. But we also have characteristic needs, without which we fail to flourish.

In face of the existential threat climate change poses - I find it very difficult to understand why a comprehensive renewable energy infrastructure isn't government funded. — karl stone

For the reason you cite in your paragraph:

Instead, they want me to stop eating meat, cycle to work and wear my overcoat indoors - just so they can keep pumping the black gold!

Capital finance (embodied in a few hundred people who make major investment decisions) and fossil fuel owners don't care (can't care) about the environment, the various species, and whether you and I freeze or not. They pretty much MUST focus on perpetuating the life of the gold-egg laying goose and generating a steady stream of profits for hundreds of thousands stock holders.

You and I would experience too much cognitive dissonance to be worrying about the future of the species and at the same time doing business as usual.

The situation is reflected in the statements of some business leaders traveling to Saudi Arabia who were asked about their presence, considering the Saudi crowned thug's recent chopping up a journalist in their Turkish embassy. "I'm here to make deals; I'm not concerned about anything else."

I quite readily anthropomorphize dogs. I am quite aware that even a very bright dog has limits which prevent them from having the sort of complex, abstract ideas that humans have. On the other hand, most dogs seem abundantly capable of having wants, fears, preferences, learned behaviors, memories of good and bad, and various instinctive drives that add up to fairly complicated behavior.

A man and a dog connect at various levels, mutually, which is a pleasurable experience (usually -- unless the dog is trying to get you to play by shoving its slimy tennis ball into your mouth). Were I to treat the dog as a warm, wetware mechanism, there would be very little pleasure in interacting. Indeed, it might even be desirable from an ecological point of view to embrace our connection with all living creatures. Better that than treating ones cow like a machine, the forest like a warehouse, the birds like ornaments.

Anthropomorphizing one's car, one's computer, or one's force of robots is common, but mistaken. A geranium has more personality than a robotic vacuum. My computer knows nothing, feels nothing, and most of the time, does nothing.

That was the book of which Truman Capote said 'that's not writing, that's typing'. — Wayfarer

Truman Capote was a much better writer, certainly. I read Kerouac's book as part of a short course in beat literature I was offering myself. I found it interesting, useful for getting the feel of the beat period, and was glad to cross it off my list of books I should have read by now. It was OK. I've tried reading a number of Burroughs's books, with mixed results. The first one I read was The Ticket that Exploded, which was back in about 1967. I didn't get it in '67. Don't know that I got it in 2017, either.

I've come to like Allen Ginsberg's beat period better.

...who broke down crying in white gymnasiums naked
and trembling before the machinery of other
skeletons,
who bit detectives in the neck and shrieked with delight
in policecars for committing no crime but their
own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication,
who howled on their knees in the subway and were
dragged off the roof waving genitals and manu-
scripts,
who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly
motorcyclists, and screamed with joy,
who blew and were blown by those human seraphim,
the sailors, caresses of Atlantic and Caribbean
love... — Allen Ginsberg

and so on. Howl. Had I read this poem in 1964, when some sections of English lit 110 were focussing on the beats, I would have been shocked, appalled, and totally fascinated. Much better that I read it later when I could appreciate it, when I had had enough sex & life experiences to know what he was talking about, when I had finally aged past those sorts of joyful activities...

There is a lot to be said for NOT reading some books too soon.