Have you seen the move live, die, repeat (edge of tommorow) with Tom Cruise? He does get a replay every time he dies. Together with a female warrior (the angel of Vurdun) he is able to try again and again thru learning from his mistakes in order to defeat the aliens.

I think this is a powerful symbolic movie influenced by my love of Platonism and stoicism. Each day is a new day. Yes, we inherit debt or responsibilities from our yesterday self but today we still are able to choose. We can learn from our mistakes. We have an angel or divine guidance to help us and each day is a new opportunity to do good. Even small good acts matter. Just one day is a wonderful gift and if used rightly is enough, as Seneca says.

Thats wishful thinking, and I think you optimism is out of bounds. Have you done anything before thats akin to starting over in a video game, aside from reversing your age?

So an example would be marriage. Some days I’m a crummy husband. But everyday I get another chance. If I screw up enough I could lead to divorce sure but even then I still have another chance each day to do the best I can at being the best husband (or ex-husband) or father I can be.
Being a good ex-husband might just involve not bothering my ex-wife, but even then that’s right action in that case. Make the best of each day.

So an example would be marriage. Some days I’m a crummy husband. But everyday I get another chance. If I screw up enough I could lead to divorce sure but even then I still have another chance each day to do the best I can at being the best husband (or ex-husband) or father I can be.
Being a good ex-husband might just involve not bothering my ex-wife, but even then that’s right action in that case. Make the best of each day. — MysticMonist

Mm, not nearly the same.

Mm, not nearly the same. — XanderTheGrey

Not nearly the same as in marriage isn’t like the rest of life? Or marriage isn’t like video games?

Not nearly the same as in marriage isn’t like the rest of life? Or marriage isn’t like video games? — MysticMonist

Both

Haha. Okay, we’ll thats my two cents.

Here's my take on this Xander. Unless your going to bring the knowledge you have now back with you when you start over, what makes you think you would do anything different? And if you did start over with the knowledge you have now, it wouldn't be the same you. It would be like cheating. In other words, it wouldn't be the "you" that originally made decision X. However, as in the movie with Cruise, even if you have more information when you go back that doesn't mean you'll necessarily make the best choice. Cruise had to keep doing it over and over until he knew many of the possible outcomes, because each outcome had it own set of problems.

Maybe it's not about making or doing everything the right way, whatever that might be, maybe it's about how we deal with these problems as we grow and gain more knowledge. There are problems however, that cause pain to others and even to ourselves that we wish we could change, and I can see how we might want to go back and change these things.

Of course my metaphysical outlook has changed drastically in the last 7-8 years, because I'm no longer a religious person. It's not that I don't think there isn't a reality beyond death, it's that I think many of our ideas of this reality are tainted by a certain religious dogma. That said, it's not just that there is religious dogma, there is also a scientific dogma that can be just as limiting, but in different ways. Actually my beliefs have freed me to think beyond what is normally thought, in terms of reality. It's a different way of thinking with it's own set of problems, dogmas, and egotistical points of view.

I was raised in an era of movies, video, games, and the internet. I had a decent dose of all of them growing up. I noticed that I suffer from this delusion that if I destroy my life, and sabotage everything, I will be able to start over in a healthy robust state. — XanderTheGrey

Immersive media -- you mentioned movies, video, games, and the internet; we can add TV and even books, comics, radio -- give people a mythos (a traditional or recurrent narrative theme or plot structure; a set of beliefs or assumptions about something). A mythos isn't the same as real-life experience, of course, but it lays down ideas which we use, just the same.

In real life, the past is never discontinuous from the present and the future. After the bullet in the video game goes through your figurative brain, you can reset. In real life, there is nothing left of your literal brain, and that's the end of your story for all eternity.

Though the past is still never discontinuous from the present and the future, life is unpredictable enough that it IS possible for people to escape bad consequences, and sort of reset and start over. People can transcend their pasts. They can get their lives organized at some point and have much better outcomes than anybody would have thought likely. There is nothing guaranteed, however.

In real life, you are not the only actor. You may wish to start over and transcend your past, push the reset button. Other people, however, might not let you do that. Suppose you dropped out of college in your senior year and didn't get a degree, and suppose you decide to just say that you did. You might be able to get away with that "start over". But other people are interesting in making sure that their employees have the actual training they claim they have. They also have a reset button, and may check out your transcript and degree status and discover that--oh oh, he lied on his application. Bad news. You're fired.

You can start over in life to the extent that other people don't prevent you from doing so. People who commit felonies and spend a few years in prison, for example, have a really terribly hard time starting over in life without the disability of their felony conviction preventing them from working and living a normal life.. People won't let them do that. Only if they find a slot where people accept their situation and hire them anyway, can they resume normal life -- and that isn't very common.

Maybe it's not about making or doing everything the right way, whatever that might be, maybe it's about how we deal with these problems as we grow and gain more knowledge. — Sam26

Maybe that's because we have no choice in the matter? I wake up tomorrow and declare it's a new day, but I still have to deal with the consequences of yesterday. If I could hit the reset button, there are days I would do that. But nobody gets that choice, so we settle for a coping strategy and call tomorrow a new day where one has hopefully learned something from yesterday's mistakes.

But if gods forbid you run over a kid in the street because you looked down at your phone when the kid ran out in front of you, no amount of growth and making better decisions will bring that kid back. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but not having a reset button sucks big time for some things.

I noticed that I suffer from this delusion that if I destroy my life, and sabotage everything, I will be able to start over in a healthy robust state. — XanderTheGrey

I have often pondered the idea that Buddhist cosmology is very like a multi-level, multi-player game. The reason why, is that beings perpetually cycle through the six realms of existence for what Buddhists describe as ‘aeons of Kalpas’. (Buddhist astronomers and mathematicians entertain quite realistic ideas of cosmic time, so ‘aeons of kalpas’ equate to very long periods of time indeed.)

This cycle is represented in the idea of the ‘bhavachakra’, the Wheel of Life, which is often depicted in Tibetan iconography (example here.) The six realms are human realm, animal realm, hungry ghost realm, hell realm, God realm and ‘titan’ realm (‘titans’ are the approximate equivalent of ‘Demi-gods). Beings cycle through these realms ad infinitum, generally in accordance with their deeds (or karma). So you do indeed get to ‘start over’, but whether or not in a ‘healthy robust state’ depends solely on karma. That’s where it’s different to a video game. And according to Buddhist tradition, the odds are generally pretty low of a favourable rebirth being the case - hence, the need for Buddhism!

But if gods forbid you run over a kid in the street because you looked down at your phone when the kid ran out in front of you, no amount of growth and making better decisions will bring that kid back. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but not having a reset button sucks big time for some things. — Marchesk

That would definitely suck, and I can understand why someone would want to change that outcome. My views on this are very unorthodox, because ultimately I don't believe any of us can be harmed in this reality. Yes, we feel deep pain, but I think that's just a function of a body (at least for much of the pain). My view is that the pain we experience here is similar in some ways to the pain we feel in a dream, although it's much more profound than a dream. But it's similar in that once we leave this reality we'll see it for what it is, that is, one of many realities we can experience. So the pain in this reality is a kind of illusion, albeit a very strong and persistent illusion. I know it sounds a bit crazy.

I'm thinking of attending the conference on The Science of Consciousness in Tucson, AZ April 2-7. Those of you who are interested and can make it should come.

https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/index.php

Yes, video-gaming, artificial intelligence and the information age are likely to be causing a metaphysical shift in our default cultural assumptions, mostly i believe for the better.

The problem with the past-century's default assumption of a finite single life or "permadeath" in gaming terminology, is that there is no logical incentive for an individual to act morally towards the world.

If everyone is going to permanently cease to exist, then why should it matter whether one looks after the planet and their fellow citizens and treats the rest of society with the undue care and respect that society has not reciprocated towards them? unless, that is, one believes there is no escaping the world, even in death...

One can argue that unless existence is perpetual and that individuals are in some sense metaphysically equivalent and bound to their world, there is no logical justification for morality.

You can start over in life to the extent that other people don't prevent you from doing so. People who commit felonies and spend a few years in prison, for example, have a really terribly hard time starting over in life without the disability of their felony conviction preventing them from working and living a normal life.. People won't let them do that. Only if they find a slot where people accept their situation and hire them anyway, can they resume normal life -- and that isn't very common. — Bitter Crank

From working class to bourgeoisie :-O

Adorable story, Agustino, but sorry, I can't endorse his glorious entrepreneurship, especially with building for-profit care homes. At least in the US, the most contemptible operations are those in the for-profit aged and disabled care business. If he makes money on health clubs, I don't care. If he makes money on hotels, I don't care. I don't approve of mobile ice cream vans, either -- over-priced neighborhood nuisances.

Besides which, 1 big success story doesn't invalidate the observation the those with criminal records generally are unable to reinvent themselves. And more besides which, you are probably flummoxed by the fact that becoming rich is not a universally recognized worthy ideal.

There is one element in the story that seems entirely consistent: a man who is ready to throw his commanding officer over board is probably ready to do anything.

I know it sounds a bit crazy — Sam26

Yes, it does sound a bit crazy. Quite a bit, actually. Let's suspend this discussion for a while. Allow us to shoot a bullet through your abdomen, into one side and out the other. As an alternative, we could crush both of your legs. After this procedure--if you survive--we'll return to the topic of how illusory you think pain is in this 'reality'.

The argument is a bit more nuanced than your interpretation. I'm not saying you don't feel pain. I'm saying that in terms of a higher level of reality, this reality, and all that goes with it will seem illusory, that is, dreamlike. That ultimately we are not harmed. Thus, the harm that we experience in this reality will not carry over into the reality of the afterlife. There is plenty of testimonial evidence for this from those who have experienced an NDE.

I understand that harm in this life will not be carried over into the alleged next life. I understand that in the next life, this life will seem illusory. My only problem is that I don't believe there is any next life, and that the realities of this world will never seem illusory to the living. I don't believe in near death experiences, either. (I don't deny that NDEed people THINK they have had an experience involving the next world, I just think they are wrong. If there is no next life, they can't have experienced it, and even if there was a next life, it is more likely that what they experience is the result of the brain being shocked by collapsing support.) What we can expect is that when we die we won't experience anything ever again. Final Act. The End. No More. Zero.

So I misspoke. What I will say now is that the idea that there is an afterworld is no saner than the idea that there is no afterworld. We don't know either way, and most likely the living never will know.

Yes, if your view is that there is no afterlife (I'm not talking about religion here - just to be clear) and that this is all there is, then that changes much of what I'm concluding. However, I do believe that I know there is an afterlife, that is, that consciousness survives. Now that may sound arrogant, but I base it on the argument I presented in my thread Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body.

And what is the difference between someone thinking they had an OBE, and someone thinking that they are sitting at a computer desk typing, other than someone thinking the one can't happen. Millions of people claim to have had ultra-real experiences outside their bodies, and some of it can be objectively verified. I don't know how we can dismiss this idea because we think it's wrong.

Adorable story, Agustino, but sorry, I can't endorse his glorious entrepreneurship, especially with building for-profit care homes. — Bitter Crank

What's wrong with that now? :s So long as the people are adequately taken care of, I see nothing wrong with it. I've thought for a long time about a business where you negotiate with old people who don't have any family anymore, you take care of them (and all their costs) until they die, in exchange for them leaving you their property after their death. That way, so long as you can withstand the costs until they die, you will be left with a lot of properties. You provide something of value, that would help many people in society. Nothing wrong with that - that's what everyone should be doing. Finding ways to solve the world's problems. And guess what? You need money to do that. Profit is good. Profit is what enables you to expand and deliver your services at greater quality and more availability.

Besides which, 1 big success story doesn't invalidate the observation the those with criminal records generally are unable to reinvent themselves — Bitter Crank

I doubt you've studied business as much as me, I have more examples to give you. Probably at least another 10 if I really try to think about it for 10 minutes. Bill Bartmann comes immediately to mind from the US. Vance Miller also comes to mind.

Most entrepreneurs were poor people when they started out. But yes, you do need to work very hard and very smart, which probably implies a lot of isolation from others and so on so forth. But at least you'll build something real, something lasting, something that you can be proud of.

And of course, statistically, most people, including those with criminal records, don't reinvent themselves. Why not? Because people are lazy most of them, or they cannot get over their anxieties, etc. You must withstand tremendous pressure to become rich. Nobody is going to make the dough for you, you have to do it yourself. A bum with a criminal record and a bum with a college degree are no different honestly.

And more besides which, you are probably flummoxed by the fact that becoming rich is not a universally recognized worthy ideal. — Bitter Crank

:-} Pff, what a joke. That must make you feel "above" this world no? As if you didn't need what money can get right? That's no different than one claiming that he is "above" eating, and doesn't care about feeling hungry.

Well, time to wake up to reality. In a capitalist society, you need money regardless of what you want to do in the world. Even Marxism would have never existed were it not for Engels' money (who was a rich industrialist) to finance the starving Marx. Schopenhauer would have failed to be a philosopher, were it not for his father's money. Da Vinci would have been a nobody, were it not for his family's wealth, which permitted him to get the very best training, and then set up his own workshop. Even Lenin realised that there was no way to get to communism, except through capitalism (the NEP policies).

Almost everything good in this world is founded on money. Money is the oil of the entire social system, it's what gets the gears working together, especially under capitalism.

God - family - money - brute force. That's the order of importance of things in this world. 500 years ago, money and brute force would have been swapped around.

First and most importantly, follow God and respect moral values. Second, be loyal to your family. Third, gather as much money as possible. Fourth, if possible, get control of brute force (whether physical or military). That's the minimum required in order to get anything done - anything.

There is one element in the story that seems entirely consistent: a man who is ready to throw his commanding officer over board is probably ready to do anything. — Bitter Crank

Yeah yeah yeah, time to paint him like such a bad guy :-} . How silly. Why is he a bad guy, because he worked super hard, took smart decisions, and never gave up? I don't think you understand the sheer pain and suffering one has endured to succeed in doing something like he did, especially starting from where he started, which was literarily nothing, not even a good education. That's something to be respected, not mocked.

One of the worst things, I believe, is people who mock those people who have worked with their whole body, mind and soul to get something productive going, a business, and they get mocked for being rich and having made a lot of money. What they do is seen as "unfair", etc. etc. I would understand someone saying it's unfair - if that someone broke his back, brain and soul trying his whole life to get a business off the ground and failing. That person would indeed have a right to say it's not fair. But most people? Pff.

Note to XanderTheGrey: We're not hijacking your thread on Video Game Delusions, we're just applying the general idea of delusions to real life.

"What's wrong with that now?" you ask. I'm not familiar with care-of-the-agéd in Europe. In the US, most people find that the highest quality of care is found in non-profit operations. For-profit operations tend to exclude not just the poorest, but the not-well-off, and are constantly chiseling off bits of services until conditions in the facility become kind of grim. This has been true for decades. 30 years ago, Scientific America analyzed the difference between non-profit and for-profit hospitals, and found that costs, meeting community needs, and care outcomes were better in non-profit facilities--not universally, but there was a very strong relationship.

I doubt you've studied business as much as me — Agustino

I'm sure you are correct.

In a given free market state or province, highly successful entrepreneurs number in the thousands--maybe a hundred thousand in a very big state (New York, Texas, California). People who are highly disadvantaged number in the millions--not a couple of million--scores of millions. Most of the people are neither highly disadvantaged nor highly successful.

Look, I was not a red diaper baby. I obtained my moral system from Christianity, (which you also claim).

God - family - money - brute force. That's the order of importance of things in this world. — Agustino

You got that out of the Bible? Look, if you want to claim Jesus as your first guide, then forget about money and brute force. Family... maybe. What is the judgement of our earthly performance based on?

'for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'

'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me.' — Matthew 25:31-46

Nothing else, Agustino: for the good of your soul, remember that a highly successful entrepreneur can get into heaven more easily than a camel can climb gracefully into a BMW Mini.

what a joke. That must make you feel "above" this world no? — Agustino

No, it doesn't make me feel about the world. I'm just not interested in being a highly successful entrepreneur. Lots of people are not.

In a capitalist society, you need money regardless of what you want to do in the world. — Agustino

Of course. But there is a big difference between having "enough" and having as much as you can get.

Almost everything good in this world is founded on money. — Agustino

Tell that to Jesus the next time you run into him.

One of the worst things, I believe, is people who mock those people who have worked with their whole body, mind and soul to get something productive going, a business, and they get mocked for being rich and having made a lot of money. — Agustino

I don't know that I mocked him, so much as saying I don't find him to be a paragon of values worth emulating. But I would think, just in psychological terms, that a highly successful entrepreneur, like yourself, would have thicker skin than to worry about being mocked.

This has been true for decades. 30 years ago, Scientific America analyzed the difference between non-profit and for-profit hospitals, and found that costs, meeting community needs, and care outcomes were better in non-profit facilities--not universally, but there was a very strong relationship. — Bitter Crank

In Europe, it tends to be the exact opposite. Healthcare tends to be much better in the private sector, but it's more expensive. For example, my grandfather is in his 90s and he had a stroke a few months ago so I have quite a lot of recent experience with these things as of late. Private care homes look great, and the facilities are very nice. Public ones are despicable, and rely a lot on the family supporting the patient anyways.

But definitely, if you can afford the private one, I think you should go for it here. Private is much better than public. Even public can end up being very expensive due to corruption - if you don't pay the individual caretakers, they ignore the patient, to the point that they can actually die.

In the UK, it was pretty much the same, but private healthcare is waaaay too expensive there. I haven't personally tried it - couldn't afford to pay 100s of £s. But I've heard services are much better. NHS waiting times and procedures are horrible - if you have a serious condition it takes you ages to get to the doctor. You call your GP saying it's an emergency problem and they say, "Oh sorry, I can only schedule you in 3 weeks. If you don't like it, go to emergency room" :-}

Look, I was not a red diaper baby. I obtained my moral system from Christianity, (which you also claim). — Bitter Crank

Right, but it seems to me you don't understand the mechanisms through which things work in this world. If I want to - say - start a successful communist organisation, start a new political party, build churches, make schools, hospitals, etc. etc. - the most important resource is money. Without money, I cannot do anything in society. And I'm not talking about doing something for myself in the sense of get an expensive car, yacht, etc. I'm not talking about doing personal stuff for myself with that money. I'm talking about being any sort of agent for change in my society. That requires power, and power in capitalism means money. Back 500 years ago, power mainly meant being the guy who ordered the army around.

You got that out of the Bible? — Bitter Crank

Yes, based on Biblical principles, and my own understanding of how the world materially works.

if you want to claim Jesus as your first guide, then forget about money and brute force. — Bitter Crank

That's not true. The point there is simply that God comes first, before money. If I can make $1 million killing an elderly woman, for example, I won't. Why not? Cause God (and morality) comes first. If I can make $1 million being a pimp, I won't - why not? Cause morality comes first.

But, in order to do a lot of other good things in the world - new schooling system, etc. etc. - one needs a lot of money, power and influence, of any kind. In order to protect the weak, one needs brute force, etc.

What is the judgement of our earthly performance based on? — Bitter Crank

On your morality and faith in God, but morality includes the duty to do as much as possible for your society, and that takes power.

Nothing else, Agustino: for the good of your soul, remember that a highly successful entrepreneur can get into heaven more easily than a camel can climb gracefully into a BMW Mini. — Bitter Crank

Right, but I'm not interested in clothing 1-2 people, I'd rather think of how I can clothe 1-2 million people.

Of course. But there is a big difference between having "enough" and having as much as you can get. — Bitter Crank

No, because again, the money has no value for oneself. It's just the power to be an agent of change that it confers that is important and matters. If you could move things like 500 years ago by controlling the army, then that would be of interest. But, unless you live somewhere like North Korea, that's not the case today.

Tell that to Jesus the next time you run into him. — Bitter Crank

I don't understand why you think that society doesn't need intelligent management to work, including the intelligent management of money. If you don't have money, you cannot feed the poor, you cannot give alms, you cannot be of much use to your society in today's age. I'm not talking of Ancient Judea or Ancient Greece, etc. - I'm talking in today's world. In Ancient Judea if you had a lot of money you couldn't do much with it. You were pretty much identical to the common person, except you had access to better clothing and food. So money was pretty much useless apart from these basic necessities. It took political power to move things.

But I would think, just in psychological terms, that a highly successful entrepreneur, like yourself, would have thicker skin than to worry about being mocked. — Bitter Crank

I don't see myself as highly successful (I'm just at the start of my journey in terms of entrepreneurship that is), but having your efforts mocked isn't nice. The fact though is that I realise that success is to a certain degree in my control (not fully), and there's no point crying like many other people, what about this, what about that. You have to sort things out yourself. Nobody's gonna sort them out for you. If I sit here and stop working you think anyone is going to complete the projects that I have at the moment :s - no, of course not, they'll sit there uncompleted until I get down to work and get them done. And not only that, but I will also disappoint my clients, which ain't good. Reputation is most important in business.

In the UK, it was pretty much the same, but private healthcare is waaaay too expensive there. I haven't personally tried it - couldn't afford to pay 100s of £s. But I've heard services are much better. NHS waiting times and procedures are horrible - if you have a serious condition it takes you ages to get to the doctor. You call your GP saying it's an emergency problem and they say, "Oh sorry, I can only schedule you in 3 weeks. If you don't like it, go to emergency room" :-} — Agustino

Although having said this, I should specify that NHS has been degrading over time, since initially I remember it used to be good. There were even many walk-in centres the first year I got to UK, where you just walked in and saw a doctor straight away without having to schedule yourself. But many of those got closed due to lack of money - see, it's always lack of money that causes problems... :’(

In the United States there is a wide cultural dividing line between (roughly) the northern tier of states and the southern tier of states.

The northern tier (Washington to New England) was strongly influenced by the Puritan ethos of the people collectively providing for their needs. These areas tend to be more liberal, more comfortable with active centralized government, and such. They tend to have strong voluntary NGO organizations (non-profits).

The souther tier (Virginia to southern California) tends to be much more conservative, they tend to favor private enterprise, they tend to be suspicious of centralized government operations (this goes back to the colonial period0, and they tend to have much weaker voluntary NGO organizations.

The northern tier of states tend to resemble western Europe in terms of health, education, levels of violence, and so on. (There are some significant exceptions -- Detroit, for instance.) The southern tier of states have much worse health outcomes (it's "the fried fish" belt) lower levels of educational attainment, and much more violence than the rest of the world. Pinker talks about this difference in "The Better Angels of our Nature".

Public--as in government--is a mixed bag. Some Veterans Administration hospitals have been absolutely abysmal, while others have achieved excellence. The Center for Disease Control is excellent and is located in the south. So is NASA. The northern tier of states, roughly the NE quarter of the country and the West Coast, tend to be net tax contributors to the Federal Government. The anti-government south tends to be net tax dependents. .

I have lived and worked in the northern tier of the US for 71 years. Maybe if I had lived in the southern tier I would think differently.

Of course it takes resources to accomplish anything. This is a truism. The question is, what are the various ways resources can best be marshaled to accomplish social goals? Most of the US economy has been privately, entrepreneurially run. But, the Federal Government has executed many extremely large projects by marshaling public resources. Government activity accounts for something like 25% to 33% of the GDP. Obviously, everything that is done by private entrepreneurs and the governments are not done well. That isn't a judgement on either one -- that's just life.

This is a truism. The question is, what are the various ways resources can best be marshaled to accomplish social goals? Most of the US economy has been privately, entrepreneurially run. But, the Federal Government has executed many extremely large projects by marshaling public resources. — Bitter Crank

Right, and I agree with that. That's why I posted that I've also seen public services work:

Although having said this, I should specify that NHS has been degrading over time, since initially I remember it used to be good. There were even many walk-in centres the first year I got to UK, where you just walked in and saw a doctor straight away without having to schedule yourself. But many of those got closed due to lack of money - see, it's always lack of money that causes problems... :’( — Agustino

But the problem is that you cannot do this without money, whether on a personal (private) or governmental (public) level. Living a meaningful life entails trying to change the world in positive ways (if such are available to you). That requires power and influence, which pretty much means money today. I don't see how that is avoidable, it's simply how the structure of this capitalistic world works.

But many of those got closed due to lack of money - see, it's always lack of money that causes problems... — Agustino

If the NHS were a patient, it would be in the ICU. But the UK problems are mostly a result of neocon policies, not actual national poverty. As far as I know, the UK is not collectively destitute. But conservative policies have dried up public resources for the NHS. Publicly financed housing in the UK is another example of bad policy under conservative ideology. Privatizing public housing isn't a good idea, but it will enable some entrepreneurs to profit handsomely, and degrade housing for many people.

But the UK problems are mostly a result of neocon policies, not actual national poverty. — Bitter Crank

But conservative policies have dried up public resources for the NHS. Publicly financed housing in the UK is another example of bad policy under conservative ideology. — Bitter Crank

Right, I agree (I've never really been on the Conservative side in terms of UK politics), but it's ultimately still a lack of money. And an individual can only change this by gaining power and influence themselves, and that mostly is also through money.

That requires power and influence, which pretty much means money today. I don't see how that is avoidable, it's simply how the structure of this capitalistic world works. — Agustino

Yes, of course. Again, this is a truism. I readily agree that resources and energy have to be applied to whatever social projects are undertaken, whether that be privately or publicly managed.

an individual can only change this by gaining power and influence themselves, and that mostly is also through money — Agustino

Sure, or one join with other people and in combination gain and exercise power, collectively.

Money just represents resources. Nobody argues against money or resources. It's the "how" of money or resources that is important.

I'm new here so bear with me. There is a lot of weaving back and forth going on in this thread so I am just going to go back to the OP's first post and respond to that.

Being an avid video game player I have a few thoughts on the matter. Though in video games you can resort to the brute force method of keep stubbornly failing into the safety net until luck prevails and you finally bypass the barrier by happenstance that is not really your only or best option, and it comes with a hefty cost (your time and enjoyment). It's also not the only means of "starting over" in the game.

It's a repetitive cycle that happens because you are likely trying to hard to make one strategy work, you forcefully apply it over and over believing that there are all these other factors and reasons for why it isn't producing success rather than allowing yourself to just accept the strategy just does not work, at least not in the situation or manner you are applying it in.

We run into this rut outside of gaming in everyday life all the time, especially where interacting with other people is concerned. Our brains love shortcuts and habits and give a great deal of resistance when it comes to abandoning a belief.

The best way to succeed at a video game is to apply a variety of strategies so that you can learn which strategies work in which situations and also have multiple strategies for any given situation. Take fighting games for example, they are like high speed games of chess. If you use the same strategy over and over your opponent will pick up on it and punish you, especially if the strategy didn't work in the first place. No amount of stubborn application will turn the strategy into a win. In order to win, you have to be adaptable.

This is true in life as well. People misunderstand the concept of "survival of the fittest", it doesn't mean the "strongest" it means the "most adaptable". The primary goal of saves and reloading in video games is that it gives you a chance to figure out how to adapt, how to reexamine the situation and develop new strategies to try. If you reload over and over trying to somehow make the same strategy work then yes, you are indeed sabotaging yourself as even if you succeed you will have learned nothing, you will not have developed your ability to adapt.

This has application in life outside of video games. Maybe you are the crummy husband but your wife gives you another chance. If you take that chance and repeat the same exact behavior you did prior somehow thinking it will work this time things will likely deteriorate. However, if you reexamine the situation, try to figure out your mistakes, and devise new strategy you will adapt and take one step forward towards being a better husband.

Like anything, video games have a lot to teach you but only if you go in legitimately looking to improve yourself. I like playing difficult games because I can practice keeping my composure under excessive stress, I can practice thinking "on my feet" and quickly adapting to situations, I can practice supporting teammates and self-sacrifice, etc. I can make the experience fruitful, it doesn't have to be a waste of time or an act of self-sabotage.

As with all things you'll get out of it what you put in, so if what you are getting from the experience isn't to your liking it is time to start considering what it is you are putting in to the experience.