Evolution doesn't rationalize optimal choice. Humans can design their own environments which is fairly dangerous because humans have the choice to gamify, but life isn't a competition.
Choosing both, either, or neither of the two options are all valid. And I think that's nice.
Sexual selection and reproduction has always been a competition, both in nature and in humans. Choosing not to play is an option, but your genes won't continue
That would imply winners and losers, but nobody wins or loses either way. Reality goes on regardless of who or what reproduces.
Even if one's genetics aren't passed on, their memetics do which nullifies the proposition of competition to begin with. You play, you don't play, you win!
Does your culture not talk about your ancestors choices and successes, and extrapolate that your current choices affect your great-great-[etc]-grandchildren?
My ancestors are forgotten to time, as I suspect are most peoples'. How many do you think can name all eight (theoretically) of their great-great grandfathers? I certainly cannot. And that is not exactly ancient history.
As far as extrapolating my current choices effect on my descendants, nothing could be simpler; I have none and so there will be no effect on them. This is something that brings me much peace. I do wish that people with or without children would take better care of this planet, since I find the continued degradation of it to be the most depressing aspect of modern life, but I would think that parents in particular would be more future oriented.
You could proxy a measurement of "amount of globalization" by disruptions in global shipping of food, energy, manufactured goods, etc. Covid caused disruptions, Houthi attacks in the Suez Canal disrupted shipping, Panama Canal is facing issues with water due to drought.. US continues to withdraw from Naval security commitments from the Bretton Woods era
Physical goods are much more complicated to move around the globe than code
> US continues to withdraw from Naval security commitments from the Bretton Woods era
Would you mind listing all the naval security commitments - from the Bretton Woods era - that the US has withdrawn from (eg over the past decade or so, anything relevant to "continues to")?
I'm not aware of any meaningful reduction in US naval security commitments. If anything the US is as busy as ever with its global naval security efforts. It's hyper busy everywhere: from Latin America, to Australia, to Europe, to the Middle East, to Asia.
The notion that the US has stepped back at all is entirely unsupported by the actual facts. It's just a weak myth being posted endlessly since Trump began spouting isolationism in 2015-2016. Meanwhile, in actuality, the US just spent another hundred billion dollars on a foreign war in two years.
> The notion that the US has stepped back at all is entirely unsupported by the actual facts.
40 years ago the US Navy was equipped and staffed to patrol the global oceans. Now, the US has a relatively few massively powerful forces of naval power projection but is woefully understaffed and under-equipped to maintain the global order against multiplying chaos. This is unlikely to change at all let alone be fast enough to influence outcomes. Growing sentiment after decades of the war on terror is for the US to be hesitant to intervene internationally, and while that isn’t current policy it’s predictive of future policy. It’s not at all clear that it would be popular in the USA to, for instance, go to Moldova’s defense.
> the US just spent another hundred billion dollars on a foreign war in two years.
The vast majority of this was accountancy fictions about the value of stockpiled obsolete materiel we couldn’t sell but had to pay to maintain or pay to scrap. We have demonstrably not gone all in on supporting Ukraine and Congress is currently strangling any attempt to do so. This is another sign of the US inevitably devolving into an unreliable defense partner.
Hate on HN all you want, I’ve been without my ADHD meds (warning: the company “Done” is not technically a scam) and spending way too much time on each for the past few days, and I can say this for sure: at least people on HN pay heed to the concept of premises and careful, non-combative argument. Most responses on Reddit are “no, that’s dumb” or “yes, that reminds me of my metaphysical takes”…
Not only that, reddit hive mind is plain wrong in most of the cases. Plus in number of occasions the "le reddit investigation", "we did it reddit" excrement caused real-world issues for people that they were targeting, and those people were innocent.
Reddit is ok and quite cool for targeted discussion on targeted sub-reddits. But all the general subreddits visited by general population and everything that pops once in a while on the front page is a target for hive mind.
For HN comparison, there is a lot of "wrong" here too, but here you can find a cited academic study from one good American university that reveals most of the botfarms and fake news disseminators come from western sphere. If you try to claim on Reddit or anywhere on the internet that fake news champion is not Russia+China+whoever is evil, your entry will get buried.
Also, ask yourself who's the median redditor. For my country's national subreddit the median redditor is a high school kid from the capital.
Average person doesn't have strong opinion about some bit of data irrelevant to their life.
If there is a thing, and topic about it has reached the internet discussions, the participants will have an opinion regardless of their actual practical knowhow about the thing. They'll form their opinion otherways. Platforms like Reddit favour a master opinion due to score and moderation system, so one out of N wrong theories will surface as the master opinion.
In real life, if you ask bunch of random people about the thing they don't know, you get wildly different answers, and largely no-one will back up anyone there. Certainly not in enough force to push a confidently wrong answer up as the "people's opinion"
I don't understand why they chose Reddit, was 4Chan not willing? Seriously though, why not use the comment and discussion sections of Wikipedia and other sites that are not drowning in social insanity.
We full time'd for a while towing a 40ft trailer with a diesel f250. While it is obviously not "efficient" relative to smaller rigs, it is way more efficient than living in a house and commuting daily even with an EV. This is one of those things I don't think people realize about "low carbon impact living" (or whatever you would want to call it), you likely get 80% there just by not heading/cooling a 2k sqft house all the time.
US grid losses are about 5% [1] and charging loses another 10-15%, and the motors are at least 90% efficient.
Meanwhile, automotive diesel engines lose 60% straight out the exhaust pipe, and that's not counting the energy required to refine and transport the diesel.
The Monroe Institute and early pioneers like Jose Silva normalized the method amongst a small group of “Psychonauts” and self improvement hobbyist that were willing to dive deep enough into the unknown to form their own opinions on the topic. I’m not sure that knowing or experiencing the ability actually improves your life but it is an interesting study if you are willing part ways with a well padded and comfortable reality.
There's a major resurgence in US manufacturing jobs now and for the foreseeable future. These are mostly in rural or small town areas, with low COL. Pay is anywhere from $18 - $40 an hour for high school graduates. Lots of investment is pouring into previously impoverished areas.
If you are not a professional in a large city, life is pretty comfy right now.
We could certainly add more combined cycle natural gas turbines to existing plants to meet demand in geographical regions that are unsuitable for wind and solar. Those generators are (comparative to nuclear) fast and easy to onboard to the grid, with (comparative to nuclear) far less safety considerations
