Try not looking from the perspective of individuals, but from the perspective of the religious/ideological hiveminds taking hold over them
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Our real issue is that we never focused on the individual. Most ppl don't need religion. ('Hivemind' is still ppl tryin to earn a living)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
There is no "we" outside of a hivemind, you know...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
The more interesting question will be: can a group of collaborating minds, all having different prior trainings, converge and form a hive.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
That is trivially true. The question is always how to deal with divergence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Divergence is intractable. Convergence isn't trivially true because of the multitudes of differences attributed to nature-nurture.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
Divergence is ultimately always tractable with separation of food chains or a form of violence that ensures minimally viable convergence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Cutting down a different view is not solving a problem. Problem model can't be altered midway through by hacking constraints.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
It is absolutely solving a problem. The question is just if there are less costly (morally, economically, physically) and risky ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
When the problem is altered, how can it be a solution. Violence would result in humanity dying before the melting of polar ice caps.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
All civilization requires conquest, because coordination in adversarial interest situations requires an administrative monopoly on violence.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.