If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification — Philosophim

What part of this do you not understand:

but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity.

And what determines identity? The mind/brain.

So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born.

I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? — Outlander

I have fully explained it up-thread, and it's my guess that it's not a lack of understanding that is blocking you, but rather a lack of acceptance.

It is a false reality. Males cannot be women. — Malcolm Parry

A person's identity is not produced by their ovaries or their testes but by their brains.

All your perceptions, all your interpretations, all your emotions, all your thought processing, happens in the brain.

What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. If you have any kind of evidence for this, please present your source.

If this is true, how does it follow that a male is not delusional to think that he is a woman? — Malcolm Parry

A delusion is characterized by a false reality. Here is Google's explanation of a delusion:

Delusions happen when the brain misinterprets experiences, often triggered by extreme stress, trauma, isolation, or substance use, creating strongly held false beliefs as a way to make sense of confusing or threatening feelings, involving complex interactions between genetics, brain chemistry (neurotransmitter imbalances), and environmental factors,

This is not the case with transgender persons. A male transgender person in reality has a male brain (although a female body). A female transgender person in reality has a female brain (although a male body).

The gender of their brain is not a delusion, it is a reality.

Is a male with a female brain not just a man with some feminine (based on gender) characteristics? — Malcolm Parry

No. In a previous post, I listed the ways in which male and female brains differ.

Why is there a need to be seen by others to be a woman? — Malcolm Parry

I don't think it is about "being seen" - I think it is just about "being" - being who you are.

It all seems to be based on sexist assumptions of what a woman is. — Malcolm Parry

Not at all.

It was a direct quote — Malcolm Parry

That quote says no more than that there are male and female brains

How is a male’s brain truly in reality female? — Malcolm Parry

I've never said this. If you go to the top of this page you will see my post:

I'm coming late to the party, and only read through the first page, and was compelled to respond. I read of gender being referred to as an "expression" and as "cultural" - but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity.

And what determines identity? The mind/brain.

So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

I wasn't sure I understood you full intention. — Philosophim

Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post. — Philosophim

All I can suggest is to read it again and feel free to ask me questions about it.

Thinking you're a man when in reality you're a woman is a delusional. — Philosophim

This presents as a misunderstanding of the information I have shared.

Questioner, your post is a bit disorganized. I a couple of points that contrast with themselves. I feel it just needs a second pass to organize what you're trying to say a bit more please. This does not mean your wrong or imply any lack of capability on your part. I too sometimes don't organize my posts correctly and it confuses other people. Would you mind spending a little more time specifying your thoughts a bit? I'll answer then so that way I'm fairly addressing your points. — Philosophim

This presents as passive-aggressive. My posts are well enough organized.

Which logical fallacy? — Philosophim

As I explained - mistaking a reality for a delusion

brain scans on transgender people prior to any medical intervention have brains that are no different than non-transgender brains. — Philosophim

I'm not sure what differences you might expect to see?

Could you please provide your source?

No, there is none to my knowledge. — Philosophim

Male and female brains differ in size, matter ratios (e.g. processing vs. connections), regional volumes, connectivity patterns, circuitry organization, processing styles, neurochemistry and hormonal influence.
Google “differences male and female brains” for a list of sources to find out more

If they are normal, and there's no evidence of any difference between a trans gender brain and a cis gender brain, then no, they don't have a sex different from the body. — Philosophim

Sorry, these three statements are not logically linked.

Would you call a properly functioning male brain and a properly functioning female brain both "normal?"

Being in a body of the opposite sex does not affect proper brain function.

so the discussion often just takes the form of a religious one, rather than a scientific one. Metaphysics leading to a craving for heaven and God, rather than reasoning about the physical properties of a reality outside our own. — Christoffer

I understand better now, thank you for explaining.

However, as I mentioned, this is not the path that this takes me on. And I don't think I am alone in viewing the possibility in purely scientific terms.

A personal identity is simply an opinion of yourself. — Philosophim

No, it's the reality of who you are.

My own sense of identity can also be objectively wrong. If I identify as Elvis Presley it doesn't actually make me Elvis Presley. — Philosophim

using this as a corollary of transgenderism is unsound reasoning - a logical fallacy - since thinking you are one particular person rather than who you are is a delusion. Transgender persons do not think they are someone who they are not - their brains truly are in reality male or female - and this is their reality, not a delusion.

there is no identifiable brain difference between a transgender person and a normal person. — Philosophim

In the way that they are both properly functioning brains, yes, this is correct. But there is ample evidence of the differences between a male and a female brain.

BTW, transgender brains are normal. They just developed with a different sex than the body.

But I'm curious, what do you think of the OP? Personal identity is not needed to discuss it. — Philosophim

I do take exception to the mention of "trans ideology and politics" - being transgender is not an ideology - but a recognition of a biological reality. And as far as "politics" go - do you mean the expectation that basic human rights are respected?

I would say instead that the anti-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics

In the end, the question becomes a cry for god — Christoffer

This has not been my experience. I recognize that reality may consist of planes that I am unable to detect, but I believe they would be as "natural" as what I am able to experience.

I am having some trouble following the logic of your reasoning, which appears to be this:

1. Human senses are limited.
2. There may exist parts of reality humans cannot detect.
3. It must be god.

the fact we only experience reality in the way we do is not evidence there’s something more beyond our reality. — Christoffer

No, but it is also not evidence that what we experience is all there is. We evolved as these creatures with a finite set of senses. Our reality consists only of what we can detect. Doesn't follow that that is all there is.

The left wing is not intolerant. They are not telling anyone how to live their lives. Only the right wing does that. They have the more rigid ideology, which expects everyone to conform to their beliefs. Any dissent from that is seen as moral failure.

I'm coming late to the party, and only read through the first page, and was compelled to respond. I read of gender being referred to as an "expression" and as "cultural" - but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity.

And what determines identity? The mind/brain.

So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born.

My God is the God of Einstein, who said his God was the God of Spinoza.

In a word, pantheism. The concept that of all of the universe is God, that all that exists is holy and worthy of reverence. Here's the basic principle of pantheism:

Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe.
Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
Respect and active care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
Promotion of non-discrimination, religious tolerance, freedom of and from religion and complete separation of state and religion.
Realism – belief in a real external world that exists independent of human consciousness.
Strong naturalism – without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Cosmos.

that painters realized they were not bound to beauty, that beauty was not a fate but, in a way, a limitation. Picasso showed that ugliness too could be the subject of great art, that artists could capture ugliness without rendering it beautiful, and this forever changed the course of culture.

The idea that art does not have to be beautiful actually predates Picasso. Tolstoy spent an entire chapter of his work What is Art? https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64908/64908-h/64908-h.htm#chap02 - first published in English in 1898 - and you can read it for free on Gutenberg at the link - dispelling this notion.

For Tolstoy - art consisted in the connection between artist and the receiver of the art. The receiver must experience some emotion the artist felt in creating the art - and only then could it be considered art.

According to Tolstoy:

A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist...

If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.

To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling — this is the activity of art.

Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.

There is also symmetry in movement. I love to swim, and when I mentioned to my doctor how good it makes me feel, not just physically but mentally, she said it is because of the symmetrical motion of my limbs in the water, which pleases my brain.

There is symmetry in music. Listen to Bach’s Prelude in C Major (2:44 min) and enjoy the symmetry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frxT2qB1POQ

1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither — Gregory

A thought.

The most important, the most consequential, is faith in yourself. Believing that you can do it - whatever it is.

↪Questioner We're just 'disembodied subjects'? — 180 Proof

No, I wouldn’t say that. We are clearly in bodies. And it is because we are in bodies that we have a reality.

And since eagles, turtles, bees and shrimp see more and different colours than humans do, their reality is different from ours.

Well, their experiences would be different. Their reality? Is what you've said about turtles and bees really true? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Our experiences are our reality.

Consider that the objective reality is made up of aggregations of atoms and molecules that do not have any colour. We, for instance, are colourless blobs in a particular shape in a vast system of these atoms and molecules interacting. Nothing we see is the thing we see, only the light reflected from it. This makes up our physical reality, together with whatever else we sense. For example, sound is not heard without a sense of hearing.

Furthermore, our mental reality is made up in our minds by however it was stimulated as it developed. Part of my reality is knowing that my mother loves me. Is this a part of an objective reality? No, objective reality is just colourless atoms and molecules together with energy interacting. Not my reality at all.

I'm a big believer in subjective reality. My reality is different from yours. And since eagles, turtles, bees and shrimp see more and different colours than humans do, their reality is different from ours.

But my reality is very real to me. Reality only exists in the consciousness of the beholder.

that self-reflection can result in changes that result in a will that result in an action that could cause some change. — ToothyMaw

So, what you have described here is a causal chain. And cause is not the same thing as effect.

does everyone who is exposed to the same suffering generate meaningful moral insight? No, and that kind of implies another step, a necessary personal quality, or even an action in there. — ToothyMaw

So, what you are looking at is this first two steps: Suffering > insight

And asking what could happen there? And what ought to happen?

The chain might continue in two different ways.

A negative insight will lead to negative action.

A positive insight will lead to positive action.

What really is beauty? — Prometheus2

In your title, you ask what is the (true) meaning of beauty. That requires we know what is true! But we have to settle for a subjective truth, because what is beautiful for one may not be beautiful for another. And I think this is because what we call beautiful is what arouses pleasurable feelings in us, and of course this varies from person to person.

that self-reflection can result in changes that result in a will that result in an action that could cause some change. — ToothyMaw

It may, but often does not.

I think we have different definitions of what constitutes “action.” Action actually means doing something, not just thinking about it.

You have identified that not all exposure to suffering leads to insight. So, too, I would say, that not all insight leads to action. These are two wholly separate undertakings.

Self-reflection can only lead to changes in ourselves.
— Questioner

That is demonstrably false. Look at any effective activist that has ever existed. — ToothyMaw

That is because they did not stop with self-reflection. Self-reflection by itself is not action, and does not cause action. In his book, How People Change, psychoanalyst Allen Wheelis sums up the sequence of change as follows:

Suffering > insight > will > action > change

Those who self-reflect and see some need somewhere but do nothing about it stop at “insight.”

Action means making things happen.

Nonetheless, self-reflection is an action anyways, so it is a non-issue. — ToothyMaw

See above.

edit: I see you are newer to the forum. Sorry if I'm being a little combative. It is my default on the forum from so many years of arguing with other combative people. — ToothyMaw

Not at all! I welcome the invitation to continue the discussion.

Yes, but these instinctual reactions reinforce or modify our rational moral views by encouraging self-reflection. That is the impasse we find ourselves at, essentially. We make ourselves more effective or grounded by intentionally stimulating our emotions, or you are like the android I mentioned earlier in the thread: — ToothyMaw

Self-reflection can only lead to changes in ourselves. If our emotional burnout results from watching the suffering of others, over which we have no power, then to disengage is the self-preserving role.

So, if exposing yourself to emotionally stimulating things - especially as they relate to empathy and compassion - makes you more morally effective, an argument for an emotional ought could be made. That is, if one thinks morality is a fundamentally human endeavor. — ToothyMaw

But you are not calling for morality, you are calling for action.

If reality means what's authentic, a truth value, then the face of God would be reality since the answer points to him. If his face is anywhere, it's only here. — Barkon

You are conflating the belief in an imaginary, supernatural being with the sum total of all cause-and-effect manifestations in existence.

Is their any role or place for the notion of a emotional ought of sorts to be coupled with the usual moral ought's? — substantivalism

I can't think there is any "ought" to emotions. They just are. They don't follow a design, but are instinctual reactions to what we experience around us. And it's true, emotional burnout is a real thing. It's possible to reach a point where to feel anymore is to do yourself in.

Or is apathetic moral judgement a supreme standard by which we should either stride for or see as the end state of proper rational deliberation on such actionably distant affairs? — substantivalism

This is all tied up with self-preservation. Feeling too much hampers survival.

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

I think this may be answered by looking at it in the context of our evolving ability to think in terms of cause and effect, to make sense of the consequences of whatever may be. Combine this with the quintessential question asked by humans - "Why?" - and you have the foundation for gods, religion, mythology and philosophy.

Of course, this all necessitated our evolution of a mind that could conduct an inner narrative.

For the subject, yes, and this subject can easily understand that it isn't the objective truth. — ssu

Hmm … thinking about this. A person’s history and circumstances might after all be considered an objective truth.

You don't need a law to say it's NOT OK to say " Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex". — ssu

What do you believe was the purpose of Florida's anti-WOKE law?

How about a law that says that it's NOT OK to educate children that pedophiles have the right to sexually molest children? — ssu

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history?

Look, American workplace has a lot of intimidation going around already. You might be fired really the most absurd things. It is really astonishing how little job security there is in the American workplace (thanks to non existent labour unions). That's the real vulnerability. Otherwise it's just political sides accusing the other side of intimidation. — ssu

Here in Canada, we have laws that protect workers from wrongful termination. In Ontario, we have the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code.

Nevertheless, the stop-WOKE law has specifically infringed on free speech.

Yet there's something wrong in the US work culture. If similarly there would be a movement for "happiness" in the workplace, meaning that workplaces should better for everybody and motivated friendly, happy employees are more productive than unhappy ones, then in the US model a fucking executive "Happiness Director" would be put to be a mandatory position in the executive branch. And to improve workplace happiness, this person would go around firing people that make others unhappy. The Kafkaesque idea of this should be obvious to everybody, but for American corporate culture, I'm not so sure. Just imagine that someone has made a complaint about you that you haven't been friendly, perhaps not said hello, and have made them feel sad. And thus you need to seek counseling or commit to course or you will be fired. So, will the threat of being fired make you be more nice and happy? — ssu

Your analogy misrepresents and diminishes the goals of progressive policy, which in part seek to address systemic racism.

Systemic racism is a fact:

... most people of colour continue to be routinely discriminated against or otherwise unfairly treated in both public and private spheres, as demonstrated by numerous social indicators. African Americans and Hispanic Americans (Latinxs), for example, are on average more likely than similarly qualified white persons to be denied loans or jobs; they tend to pay more than whites for a broad range of products and services (e.g., automobiles); they are more likely than whites to be unjustly suspected of criminal behaviour by police or private (white) citizens; and they are more likely than whites to be victims of police brutality, including the unjustified use of lethal force. If convicted of a crime, people of colour, particularly African Americans, are generally imprisoned more often and for longer periods than whites who are found guilty of the same offenses. Many Blacks and Hispanics continue to live in racially segregated and impoverished neighbourhoods, in part because of zoning restrictions in many predominantly white neighbourhoods that effectively exclude lower-income residents. Predominantly Black or Hispanic neighbourhoods also tend to receive fewer or inferior public services, notably including public education. The lack of quality education in turn limits job opportunities, which makes it even more difficult to leave impoverished neighbourhoods. On average, Blacks and Hispanics also receive less or inferior medical care than whites and consequently lead shorter lives.

How best to address this?

But coming back to education. As I said, politicians just love interfering in education content and what they emphasize to be something important, which their opponents try to portray in the worst possible light. And it's simply absolute nonsense that politicians make laws about what the curriculum should have or shouldn't have. Talk about useless micromanagement. — ssu

Of course there needs to be educational standards set by the government, or we would have a mish-mash, and they should be made in consultation with experts and educators.

Was that a Freudian slip? Diversity, not diversion. — ssu

Whoops! Corrected. Thanks.

Objective truth isn't relative. — ssu

Oh, I see you edited your answer to add "objective." Well, yes, in that case.

But subjective truth is true.

We each of us have our own truth – made up of our history and current circumstances. Different segments of the population have different truths. A descendent of enslaved people, for example, may very well have a different truth than, say, Ron DeSantis. And to each of us, our life is true.

What's so wrong about Florida Bill? — ssu

It might look good on paper, but in practice it is having a very chilling effect on education and freedom of speech. Teachers are being intimidated. They fear for their jobs if they even broach the true history of the country, or race in any context. How can you teach the country’s history without teaching the truths of slavery, for example, or systemic racism? In the wake of the law, schools and colleges around the country cancelled events related to civil rights or courses covering race, fearing backlash.

It's all designed to protect White students from “discomfort” (born of entitlement and superiority) without any regard to the “discomfort” of Black Americans. It’s deeply divisive. A quote from the law:

“… classroom instruction and curriculum may not be used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view inconsistent with the principles of this subsection or state academic standards.”

That phrase – “indoctrinate or persuade” – is so wide open it could lead to banning virtually anything.

History being silenced is never a good thing.

What do you think is more beneficial, if we had to choose, teaching young people about the Holocaust or teaching them, for example, about the efforts being made to include diverse cultures from around the world? — Alonsoaceves

I don’t see any reason why it should be an either/or situation. Why can’t we teach both?
And – what do you mean by “include diverse cultures?” Include them in what?

I understand your point and why, but I believe that this way of educating by revisiting horrors is not the most effective way to create a change in mindset. — Alonsoaceves

Whose mindsets are we concerned with? Certainly not those who may have become disadvantaged by past wrongs.

Consider in Canada – the legacy of Indigenous residential schools. The hurt caused by that system must be addressed, and it cannot be addressed unless it is acknowledged. Only then can healing occur. This has led to the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.

In the US, the First Amendment protects free speech, and it was used to strike down Florida’s Stop WOKE Act’s prohibition against certain workplace Inclusion, Equity and Diversity trainings and teachings - as a violation of free speech. The employers who brought the suit understood they had to be able talk about the past in order to discuss critical issues that affected their workplace.

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. — Alonsoaceves

But an unwillingness to talk about past wrongs specifically creates “us vs. them” scenarios. Such as in the case of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act – which is based on this premise: This is our truth, and it is the truth that matters, and your truth doesn’t matter, so shut up.

How does international relations figure into this?

Of course we should celebrate peace! At the same time, we must not forget the horrors of what has gone on in the past.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

Consider the Holocaust.

As of June of 2022, laws mandating education in the Holocaust were on the books in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In the United States, the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin. In total, 23 states have mandatory Holocaust education.

We need to acknowledge what has happened in the past before we can heal and learn from it.

Oh hello. — NOS4A2

That honor is bestowed on the person who has wielded the greatest influence "for good or for ill."

Creative imagination is then required to form an inferential story (hypothesis) out of those observations and measurements. — Janus

Thank you, yes. We tend to think of science as a pursuit of analytical thinking, but of course creativity and imagination are required, too. Here’s an interesting quote from Albert Einstein (1929):

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

https://aeon.co/ideas/science-is-deeply-imaginative-why-is-this-treated-as-a-secret

What, then, is the requirement? — Vera Mont

The stimulation of and the processing by the following brain structures involved in theory of mind functioning:

Functional neuroimaging and structural connectivity studies have identified dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) and temporoparietal junction (TPJ) as the core regions of the neural substrate for ToM, extending to regions that include the precuneus (PCu), anterior temporal cortex, anterior cingulate and posterior cingulate (PostCing), medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and amygdala, to constitute an extended ToM neural network

Also copied from the same webpage:

The theory of the mind (ToM), also known as mentalizing, is defined as the ability to attribute mental states to others (Premack and Woodruff, 1978; Frith and Frith, 2006) and to obtain knowledge about others' perspectives at a given moment or in a particular situation, including intentions, hopes, expectations, fantasies, desires, or beliefs. This ability is essential for successful navigation in social life (Leslie, 2000; Krawczyk, 2018). These mental states can be divided into two components, an affective one, which involves the understanding of emotions, feelings or affective states and a cognitive component that implies beliefs, thoughts or intentions (Henry et al., 2015).

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.618630/full

No they have not. No person of faith living today has conceived of a god independently. They've been told by their priest, and read in the book thrust upon them by priests, and they accept that as gospel.... selectively. — Vera Mont

A theory of mind does not “pop” into the head independently. We learn by what we see, hear, experience, do, and read, and then our brains, with its hypersocial focus and filters, ascribe mental states to that which is not us – and believe in them.

From the beginning, the Book of Genesis tells us God both deliberately and mindfully created all of Creation.

It is only a pastor’s highly evolved theory of mind that allows that pastor to preach about the contents of God’s mind (for example, what God expects from us), and our highly evolved theory of mind to believe that message. It is only a highly evolved theory of mind that allows the religious to believe they have a “personal relationship” with Jesus. When people pray, who are they praying to?

Consider -

In the movie Castaway, Tom Hanks' character befriends a volleyball that he calls “Wilson” – his only friend and companion during the years that he is on the island. The character ascribed mental states to the volleyball.

Or any fiction novel ever written with well-developed characters and we get right inside their heads. These characters are fictional, but they become real to us. We know what they are thinking and how they are feeling, and even anticipate their moves. This could not be possible without a well-developed theory of mind.

Scientific theories come from the imagination, just as other kinds of stories do — Janus

No, they don't. Scientific theories are formed as the result of many repeated experiments and the gathering of observations. They are characterized by repeated testing, strong evidence and consensus.

abductive reasoning) side of science. — Janus

Abduction still requires observation and measure of the physical existence.

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into. — Seeker25

It seems you are saying modern democratic trends are more in line with our evolutionary trends than is autocracy. Yet, for most of human history, rule was by autocracy. We haven’t significantly evolved in the last two hundred years, the time during which we see the rise of the modern democracy (free and fair elections, mass suffrage, executive accountability, political liberties and human rights). I think it is more likely that we overcame some of our baser instincts – tribalism, attraction to the strongman, an “us vs. them” mentality, fear – to accomplish this.

The question becomes – why are we witnessing a regression to those states?

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this. — Seeker25

To get political for a minute, that is why it is so important that the US, as the world leader in the protection of democracy, not falter with Ukraine.

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc — Seeker25

Significant change usually originates with the intellectuals and the poets. I posted elsewhere, the first to be persecuted when an autocrat comes to power are the intellectuals and the great thinkers.

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project, — Seeker25

Mostly, he appeals to their baser instincts, and not their rationality.

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results. — Seeker25

You are a visionary! We need more like that.