Think of John D. Rockefeller. He hated competition. He was the richest businessman ever. Think of Peter Thiel - read his book from Zero To One (it's quite philosophical). He hates competition too! Competition is a race to the bottom - it's a way to destroy yourself. Don't compete. Never compete. Run away from competing. — Agustino

Yeah, but without competition, you have no progress. Not everyone can have a product that initially doesn't have any sort of competition even though that's the shortest way to becoming rich. I mean, it's hard to do that nowadays, at all.

it can be solved but governments have no role to play in that. — andrewk

I'm not sure; but, I think the Prisoners Dilemma would be apt as a reference here.

Furthermore, it seems that most countries have bought into the neo-liberal doctrine that free markets can solve any problem (even those which have been created by the same free markets), and that intervention in terms of laws or regulations are detrimental to the existence of free markets, which have brought so much prosperity. What's more, there is a very strong opposition from the right to not pass any such regulation and taxes for carbon emissions, which you can see with Brexit and the oncoming Trump era.

I might have oversimplified the issue; but, I suppose you get the point.

No but what I meant is how do you know that the invisible hand of the markets selects the best outcome? What if, instead of a race to the top, it is a race to the bottom? — Agustino

Efficiency. Ie. a process that can be made more efficient (via technology). Then, via competition the technology gets implemented in day to day living, thus leading to greater productivity and that leads to a boon for everyone in terms of lower costs and expenditures.

If you've noticed the lower the profits for implementing such gains in efficiency the better it is for everyone (entry to the market, competition, inflation).

There will be a new equilibrium and the Production Possibilities Curve will shift to the right, I guess. Heh.

I think the risk, is that a small increase in temperature will lead to greater longer term effects on rising temperatures. Meaning, if you pass some threshold of temperature, then you get methane release from Siberia and other places... Don't quote me on that, but my point is that when we get to ~2C increase in global temperatures, then it will be hard to stop even further increases. Kind of a runaway cascade of events.

Agreed. Let the invisible hand operate freely. If the liberals will feel safe on Mars, then let them have cake.

The only issue that bugs me is the flat out denial by the right to claim there is no human effect on climate change. If they got their act together and didn't seem like people who believe the earth is still flat, and acknowledged climate chance, while outlining the potential benefits that, that might entail, then they would have unrivaled support from independents and other undecided groups. But, I guess you always get 'total opposition' when you just have two parties fighting against each other.

Here's another article going into detail about the scientific ramifications of climate change, up to 2.2 C as previously mentioned.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

Well, a lot of the answer depends on if you believe in free markets or not.

Given those such people like Musk or Bill Gates making contributions to the survival of humanity through the positive externalities created by the invisible hand, then the future looks pretty good.

However, if we can't find a solution to the 'tragedy of the commons' scenario with regards to climate change, then the future looks pretty uncertain for everyone on the globe.

What if the bullshitter is so deep in his bullshitting that they believe it to be the truth?

No matter what evidence, his mind cannot be persuaded from his own conception of truth.

Then 'good' should suffice.

Have a good new year.

Yeah, I'm trying not to get too hyped. As usual, I will be home observing other people having fun, and I'm quite content with that. Cheers.

Hah, over my dead body. If anything building a stronger work ethic and such are instrumental for possibly going after a degree in philosophy in the future. As far as I know, it's a pretty tough degree to get.

I do like the grand conceptions of reality that vary from philosopher to philosopher. — R-13

Yes, variety is good. Kind of reminds me of that joke of people being held up by a philosopher, with the couple asking each other if they can reason with him.

I can't tell whether you find Heidegger convincing or not. Are you pointing out his absurdity or defending him? I would personally give him grief over the implicit distinction between "thinking" and "reason." — R-13

Well, I am pretty much against most metaphysics by default. I always felt Heidegger played peek-a-boo with reason in most of his work. Thinking encompasses reason, not the other way according to Heidegger; but, then that leaves us to scratch our heads about what can be said about thinking without the use of reason...

"Thinking begins only when we have come to know that reason, glorified for centuries, is the stiff-necked adversary of thought." — R-13

And yet, reason was applied liberally to derive that conclusion.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Pretty much the whole philosophic community would beg to differ with you.

Ahh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum

Yes; but, even in some cases like with seed priming with stuff like melatonin and shikimic acid or even salicylic acid, harden the plant from stresses such as insufficient water or high salinity.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so be it:

http://imgur.com/NOk6ybg

http://imgur.com/7xOpsmf

http://imgur.com/WZ36owj

Thank you all for your responses. I really appreciate them and have a good contrast with other places where I posted this. Most of them indicated that the profit motive has already utilized these ideas or other such irrelevant matters.

I have targeted pot growers (due to high-value crop with very careful attention to increasing plant growth, yields, and resin production). If anyone is interested in me sending a sample of the product to you, I can do that at no cost on your end. I'll cover shipping too.

I'm really motivated by the fact that no companies (to the best of my knowledge) have utilized this research in practice. Even the simplest of things that can be derived from this research is to spray coat seeds of various plants with melatonin and shikimic acid. I mean, if you haven't already take a look at the research behind that simple thing. It's really a potentially great idea to work on and develop in my free time...

I sort of feel like those Jesuits discovering or researching plants in their abundantly free time.

I also found a job with a pretty large nursery chain of plants and hope to pitch this idea to some of the employees there who actually have degrees in botany and the life sciences.

Anyway, cheers.

Aside from that, Wittgenstein is a good choice, especially as he's been so influential to 20th century philosophy. — Terrapin Station

Is the valence of this statement in the positive or negative. Can't tell.

Why not just experiment, for fun, with plants in your garden? (I know this seems like an unrelated topic, but you've mentioned struggles with self-esteem. It seems like you set yourself very high standards. And standards are good, but it can be bad for personal growth (speaking from experience) to only feel comfortable pursuing things that seem totally groundbreaking. It's a vicious superego that demands that and only that. And it can really break you down. — csalisbury

Well, I intend to test some of the compounds in my own leisure time. I already compiled most of the compounds and requested a lab in China purchase the materials in bulk and send it over to me.

As for self-esteem, I don't know if you read it in detail and given that I am a disciple of 'unenlightened', I concluded that self-esteem is a bogus concept. Most likely some form of much-needed narcissism or feeling 'special'.

Locke given his influence over the political landscape.

Mmm, I dunno about that. The whole point of the clinically depressed requiring medication is because they are not able to change their behaviors and thoughts. — Heister Eggcart

Well, depression isn't treated nowadays by people who you seem to portray as completely incapable of taking care of themselves, by locking them up in an asylum or another such manner. Yes, this is in large part due to prescribing the appropriate medication to those who need it most. However, full remission from depression or other mental disorder is, I think, not that prevalent among people who treat depression with medication alone. The efficacy of treating depression with medication and therapy is much much higher, and more often than not remission is achieved.

Most people who voted for Trumpo thought Obama was a Muslim. Go figure.

Karl Marx

It's my hypothesis that depression slowly creeps up on oneself until one realizes how much of a nuisance it becomes a day to day functioning. It's a slow and quite deadly process. Profilactic care seems essential, as with anything health related.

If one can't afford a therapist then one needs to start the self-help books and give that a try. In my case I do both, medication and read some CBT books about cognitive distortions and the like.

Well, behaviors and thoughts can be changed before the depression becomes such a nuisance. Either way, it's a nuisance; but, there' no other option than to bite the bullet and enhance treatment with such things as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or whatnot.

That mindset is actually what comes before. — Heister Eggcart

Well, regardless of what came first or not, the imperative is to come to terms with depression before one needs to see the doctor and take the happy pills as a last resort. Although, I won't say that it's easy to do so.

Yeah, but then the mindset is that the pills will do all the work, which they can't and never will. And this seems like the sentiment both the doctor and patient explicitly or implicitly agree on.

I was talking about medical depression which can be treated as a chemical imbalance. — m-theory

Here's the problem, and while I'm at it, my dislike for calling states of mind as 'disorders', is that we don't really know what exact amount or the ratio of neurotransmitters is needed to be in or in what amount, and quite frankly we will never know the answer to that. All we do know that in some people with clinical or non-clinical (is there any difference between the two?) depression have a state of mind that won't let them function as they wish.

Now, what is one left to do? Simply ignore the 'disorder' and swallow the happy pills or not try and understand their current state of mind and instead dissociate the illness with the simple act of taking the happy pills, and keep on taking them until they lose efficacy.

Maybe what I'm saying can be better understood by the discontinuity between psychotherapy and psychiatry. I hope the bridge between the two can be made and used in tandem instead of treating the 'disorder' as a 'migraine' or something else that can be readily treated by pills and what have you.

I don't know how you got that idea.

My point with the title of the thread was that embracing what one has is a sine qua non for getting better.

It is not necessary to do so and doing so can impair your functionality as well as your quality of life. — m-theory

I don't think that is quite true. That sort of like telling a patient their gonna die in 3 months and let them suffer or not tell them and let them live their lives comfortably until then. The obvious choice is to tell the patient that he will die in 3 months.

With depression or any mental disorder, one has to accept it (the diagnosis) to even begin treatment.

You make it seem as if it's candy and if there's nothing wrong with doing drugs as long as makes you feel good. — Gooseone

I think that's a gross misunderstanding of my claim. If there are means to minimize suffering at little to no cost (side effect wise) I feel that mentioning taking a simple compound like lithium is OK.

But, based on the responses I digress.

The level of lithium I'm taking is far lower than the typical clinical dose range of 300 mg or even more.

As far as I know 5 mg is a baby dose that can be taken safely every day or every other day.

I didn't consider life good or bad. I just accepted it and tried to enjoy it as much as possible. According to pessimists life is bad, ugly place not worth continuing. This is what I deal in my head all day, this conflict what I feel about life and what pessimist say about life. — rossii

I'm no doctor and don't pretend to be one; but, try some lithium. It's as harmless as one can get and is quite effective as an adjunct to most medications along with being a potent anti-suicidal drug. I take 5 mg (120mg of lithium orotate) every day and feel quite serene and calm. Goods stuff for your body also.

One might say that depression is an excess of emotional control. — unenlightened

I have always held the view (from personal experience) that depression and other mood disorders (how I hate that word, 'disorders') are a result of an excess of emotion. There is no benchmark to gauge one's level of emotional response to an event or experience; but, usually when someone is left to internalize it as opposed to a healthy externalization of one's emotions, then I suppose depression is the result one is left with.

Notice how almost every drug (apart from the newer one's) are antagonistic to one's level of experience that is governed by the various neurotransmitters in one's brain.

It seems paradoxical that one ought effectively suppress one's emotions further to reach remission from depression.

Sure, and you shouldn't take migraine meds but should just accept your headache and move on, and please don't be a judgmental prick while having a migraine. Just deal with it. Nature gave you this migraine for a good reason. Embrace it. — Hanover

I think comparing depression with a broken leg or foot would be apter in this case. Anyway, I fail to see your point here.

You're sort of asking why we should fight our God given natural state because, after all, an all good god wouldn't have given us something for no good reason. End your depression for the same reason you shave down your ugly nose. It makes you happy. — Hanover

Notice how there has to be something against which the "anti" prefix in "anti-depressant" to be opposed towards. My point is that there's no point in "fighting with depression". Simply accept it and move on. Just like pretty much everything in life.

That is unless your a judgemental prick and like to see the world through your shades of black and white.