lustysociety

0

lustysociety wrote (edited )

I have watched some videos on youtube with this guy:
Michael Greger diet

In short if you go vegetarian or vegan:

  • Take your vitamin B12 supplement.
    A multi vitamin and mineral supplement might be even better (safer).
  • Eat enough essential fatty acids.
    One of the best sources for omega-3 fatty acids are flaxseeds.
    Drink enough to avoid blockage of your intestines by sticky flaxseeds.
-5

lustysociety wrote (edited )

You wrote:

Nothing is really "hateful" against white people in that policy.

I wrote:

No policy against discrimination or hate against normal white persons.

As most might have guessed, I am white too.
The laws against discrimination protect all persons where I live (West-Europe).
Of course I do not need any policy protection from a (virtually unknown) website that is moderated and visited by unabashed radical racists.
So you too think that two wrongs make a right.

1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

It all depends on the social environment.
I like science and technology.
Either all persons invest in science or someone must collect wealth in order to finance science.
Probably science and art would not be as advanced today if there had not been members of the elite who spent their time as scientists or philosophers and/or financed science, technology and art in the last 3000 years.
Capitalism does not prevent the rich to fight against the worst poverty.
No matter the economic system, it all depends on what the persons actually want and do.

-8

lustysociety wrote (edited )

That is my point.
I wonder what is the wanted community for raddit.me.
No policy against discrimination or hate against normal white persons.

terms of service:

Content Policy

Content is prohibited if it

Promotes white supremacy, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia or cisgenderism, misogyny or patriarchy, classism, ableism, body shaming, antisemitism, Islamophobia, colonialism or age discrimination.

Sexualizes minors or promotes adults having sex with minors.

Trivializes or makes light of rape.

Apologizes for police or military brutality, imperialism, eugenics, genocide.

Apologizes for violence towards children.

1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

Capitalism is a reasonable system but it is not without alternative and I do not like capitalism.
Many persons would still use all kinds of drugs no matter the economic and social system.
Alcohol and tabaco are legal and among the most unhealthy common drugs.
The government makes any drug related problem much worse except when the government pays the treatment for drug addiction.

1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

Yes, I read most of it.
Quote:

Especially when it is so easy to make: an addict can cook up krokodil using ingredients and tools bought from the local pharmacy and hardware store. The active ingredient, codeine, is a mild opiate sold over the counter in many countries. Users mix codeine with a brew of poisons such as paint thinner, hydrochloric acid and red phosphorus scraped from the strike pads on matchboxes. The result—a murky yellow liquid with an acrid stink—mimics the effect of heroin at a fraction of the cost. In Europe, for example, a dose of krokodil costs just a few dollars, compared with about $20 for a hit of heroin.

If any drug was legal:

  • nobody would have to use this stuff or other (cheap) drugs diluted by toxic stuff.
  • better drugs would be cheap.
1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

The government is responsible for most problems related to drugs.
If governments would not protect the monopoly of criminal dealers:

  • Nobody would get hurt by cheap drugs.
  • Nobody would get hurt by criminal dealers.
  • Nobody would lose his life as prisoner because of drugs.
  • Nobody would waste tax money to pay the police and the prisons because of drugs.
1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

What people want and what they are likely to get are quite different things.

True but desire and intention leads to work and thus to change.
I call all countries with problems as under-developed because they have problems.
Except for climate change and criminal activities, the biosphere in a country is destroyed by citizens living in that country. E.g. poaching, destruction of forests, pollution of water, pollution of air (although some of America's air pollution starts out in Asia).

I guess that fossil fuel remains rather cheap in the next few years (the last ones where fossil fuel is used for transport) which is bad because the motivation to use alternative energy sources remains less despite the Paris Agreement for climate change.
IMO we have already much of the technology we need.
Solar panels to create heat, electricity or fuel.
Microbes that create fuel.
There are technologies like fuel cells and flow batteries (e.g. this) that allow to produce fuel in sunny reagions and transport and store the fuel where it is needed.
Thorium based reactors have been possible for a long time but governments chose to use unsafe Uranium based reactors in order to have Plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Fusion reactors might become possible in the next 2 decades but they might not be needed.
New technology will discovered or invented. E.g. use of water waves or water currents, use of nuclear waste material.

1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

Empires and other political structures have collapsed and made room for something else.
Change happens and will happen.
IMO, humanity has progressed too far to lose knowledge and important skills e.g. like writing or reading the recorded data world wide.

I have read almost 2 articles about post-civ:

IMO the description of a post-civ society is not clear but the common ideas seem to be:

  • equality among all humans
  • care for nature and use of technology for good and not for bad
  • "post-civ" is not "primitivist" but no hurry to advance science and technology either.

Although this portrait reminds me of primitivism (Quote: "Glass jars are extremely useful, and are among the most abundant items scavenged from the old world.")

IMO, if ET came to earth and destroyed all technology, knowledge and memory of the "old civilized world", a similar history and struggle for survival, wealth, dominance and technology would happen again.

1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

I do not know of any collapse movement.
But I know that most persons want joy, wealth and technology.
In every country the persons with the greatest force decide.
In most or all countries this is the majority of the population.
I predict a smooth change of all countries and societies worldwide without major war or economic disaster.

1

lustysociety wrote (edited )

Change is inevitable.
Collapse, where many or all suffer, will only happen because of a catastrophic meteor impact or super volcano eruption.
Even than societies will not be less advanced then before.
There is no possible global "postciv" scenario.
If some persons prefer a prehistoric lifestyle, they can have it but not with their underage children.

0

lustysociety wrote (edited )

I do not want to pay taxes that are wasted for war and antiquated education and debt and bank money.
How does that make me a feudalist?
I see no benefit in fighting physically the police and damaging wealth/property.
How does that make me a feudalist?
If I am against the state for good reasons, then I am a feudalist.
If I defend the state for good reasons (e.g. protection from violent extremists), then I am an ancap or something else.
Many persons think the state is good and should protect against crime but when the state wants to ban cryptography just to know what happens then the state becomes the bad monster to be feared.
Many use Facebook but are against Facebook because Facebook uses their data for profit but Facebook will never break into their house for a raid.
Quite irrational and inconsistent.
Fortunately we have no law and police in Europe like in the USA.

There is no reason for almost all persons in the northern hemisphere to fear war.
For most people in the southern hemisphere there is no reason to fear war either.
If there was no USA, UK, France and Israel even less people would fear war.
If there was no Islam, even less people would fear war.
If there was no hate among Africans, even less people would fear war.

Hungry people do not go hungry because of technology but because of lack of technology.
And no, I have no benefit from anyone being poor in this world.
I feel bad for all poor persons.
A rich neighbour is better than a poor neighbour.
It would be good if the billion of poorest persons could contribute to science and technology instead of living in misery.
I am sure that the "poor" persons complain much less about "rich" white men and women than some persons on this forum do.

0

lustysociety wrote (edited )

There is no benefit in doing anything that puts me/us at odds with a government.
Except for taxes and compulsory education in classic schools, I do not see anything where existing governments are a problem.
Technology continues to make classic education for classic wage slavery obsolete; this becomes more and more obvious to all persons and their elected politicians.

Regarding limited resources like land and water:

  • Either most persons (not only members of the lustysociety) will democratically vote to change the allocation of the resources.
  • Or members of the lustysociety and similar societies will coordinate their wealth and efforts to buy land and water on the existing markets.

IMO, the reason why persons worldwide are friendlier and more tolerant today than in the past (e.g. a war is only feared by old minded persons) is not because of some magic, random or inevitable evolution of culture but 100% related to richer and more comfortable lives provided my technology.