kaskakokos

I tested it on a peak we have in Spain called 'Pico Tres Mares,' which translates to 'Three Seas Peak,' and it was nice to see that depending on which side you drop the raindrop, the water flows to the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic, or the Mediterranean.

Nice.

You want someone to teach you the difference, but what you desire is for no one to be able to point out a single difference to you.

I had to try :/

For me it is also something ideological but even from an economic point of view I never buy on Amazon, this is my reasoning:

You buy it cheaper but you are generating a debt, it's like buying on credit: somewhere someone is being exploited or a natural resource is being overexploited, and you will pay for it in the future, with a poorer environment socially, economically and naturally.

Everything comes back. I once read that I don't know which tribe made decisions that were good for the next 7 generations, well, buying on amazon is a decision that is not good even for the current generation, you will probably see the consequences in your own or your children's life.

In my opinion, this research is very biased: Looking at the first 5 questions [1] I see a materialistic context that channels the answer towards a materialistic view of happiness, where of course money is key.

Now, let's take the Aristotelian definition of happiness: It is about doing good and matching one's nature with one's actions. Then I would design questions like:

- Do you feel that your life is interconnected with the lives of others?

- When you reflect, do you feel that your life is what it should be?

- Are you satisfied with your life?

- In your daily life you do things out of obligation that do not correspond to your true nature?

- etc.

It all depends on what definition of happiness you take, and the one selected by the sponsors of the work I guess is not mine.

[1]Source: https://go.trackyourhappiness.org/

- In most respects, my life is close to my ideal.

- The conditions of my life are excellent.

- I am satisfied with my life.

- So far I have achieved the important things I want in life.

- If I could live my life over again, I would change almost nothing.

Yep, good point.

Let's avoid considering outliers to maintain a balanced discussion.

While I don't believe anyone has the right to live in Castellana or the Royal Palace, it also wouldn't be fair to require someone to move to the desert to find a home.

Yes, It is in Spain:

Article 47 of Spanish Constitution:

All Spaniards are entitled to enjoy decent and adequate housing. The public authorities shall promote the necessary conditions and shall establish appropriate standards in order to make this right effective, regulating land use in accordance with the general interest in order to prevent speculation.

Living in Spain, I have friends from both ends of the spectrum: those speculating with houses and those who cannot afford to buy one.

We can blame the okupas, calling them lazy if that suits you. But we are missing half the story if we don't consider the other end of the spectrum: people buying property purely for speculative investment. For example, consider the housing crisis in Majorca [1].

Since we have enough money to buy a house, it's easy to blame the okupas. However, you should ask yourself: How much would housing prices need to increase before I can no longer afford a home? What would I do with my kids in that situation?

Justice should be defended with a veil of ignorance about your personal situation. It's easy to talk about what is fair regarding housing if you own two or three properties. Talk to people, and you will understand how lucky you may have been.

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/mallorca-property-boom-stirs-sellout-f...

In his book "Collapse," Jared Diamond speculates about the cutting down of the last tree on Easter Island and how this event might have contributed to the civilization's downfall.

Might someone in the future ponder who initiated the last airline for dogs?

>Anarchism is a theoretical mental exercise with no basis in anything in the real world

You can expand your universe if you search this: Anthropology Egalitarianism

Thanks for the info on tree kale, I didn't know about it but it looks amazing :)

This time it is not the horses that will be eliminated, but the horsemen.

Moravec's paradox [1] explains that AI can perform the "complex" processes and cannot execute the "simple" processes of children.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

I agree with you, they have a big impact on several levels: noise, landscape, soil, wildlife and even local economy (would you like to go on a rural escape to a beautiful mountain village full of roads and metal giants)?

Where I live in Spain there are several associations trying to prevent the installation of wind turbines in many of the beautiful mountains that are otherwise going to be industrialised [1].

I recommend joining local associations if you want to prevent wind turbines from being installed on your home.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/20/spain-new-...

Yes, but first you have to go through a period of 1 month, then the final change of metabolism occurs, your age is frozen and you will never increase it.

>> To lose weight long term we need to fix whatever caused the regulating machinery to malfunction as we can't really eat less (over long term).

Hi, why do you say this? I mean I was a glutton (and still am), but I have been able to reduce the amount of food eaten by skipping dinner as a way of eating less. I've been at it for 2 years now, not long term maybe but medium term and I have no intention of stopping given the benefits I'm having.

In this sense, I liked the book: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

Certainly, it explains that if we look at previous civilisations that have been annihilated, it seems that slow decay is a feasible path.

According to their argumentation, there is a balance of 4 common environmental problems in previous cases:

I. Destruction/loss of natural resources. II. Ceilings on natural resources. III. Harmful things. IV. Human population.

"let's hope technology won't save its ass"

I think it's not even feasible, technology is sustained by overconsumption and depletion of resources, I mean even building a PC requires hundreds of kilograms of fuel, chemicals and water[1].

We live as if the party were free, but when the lights are turned on and the music is turned off we will have to pay. We start to foresee that we will have not money, so we hope to terraform Mars, but we will have no time to jump from one vine to another.

Anyone with a more optimistic outlook?

[1] https://www.tecnologialibredeconflicto.org/en/environment/

Even if we don't view ourselves as humans in the most favorable light, even if consider the possibility that our tendencies might be more egotistical and destructive than we realize.

In such a scenario, deliberately causing stress generation after generation in a species crucial to our well-being and, perhaps, survival is not advisable. It raises the question: What could go wrong?

I look at it from this perspective, we have been hunting-gathering for 95% of our time on earth, it may be the case that from our bubble we think we are "more advanced", but if we think about the test of time, we have not yet passed, and call me crazy, but it seems that this "advancement" of ours does not hold up for long at this level.

Today we know that many "non-advanced" cultures, aware of the limits of growth, limited the consumption of resources in many imaginative ways.

It is ok to say, hey you did this better than me.

I think the word "exceptionally" arises when comparing with other animals, the amount of effort a human child needs from its parents and family until an advanced age is unprecedented in other terrestrial companions.

https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMsbl22gQ...>> In this recent video titled "Salt & Blood Pressure: How Shady Science Sold America a Lie", the speaker touches on a controversial topic in the field of nutrition science: the relationship between salt, blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. The speaker asserts that the shady science supporting the idea that high salt intake equals high blood pressure has been perpetuated in American culture through flawed classification systems and biased public health policies that advocate for low-salt diets. While reducing sodium intake has been shown to lower blood pressure in individuals with hypertension, the speaker raises questions about the benefits of a salt-restricted diet for the general population. They argue that high-sodium intensity may not be the only reason for cardiovascular disease, and that other factors may play a role. Moreover, the speaker calls attention to the limitations of current methods for measuring sodium intake and the challenges of establishing a specific amount of sodium that is adequate or insufficient for overall health. The speaker suggests that more nuanced understandings of the relationship between sodium and blood pressure are necessary, and that the food industry has a role to play in improving our relationship with salt. Overall, the speaker encourages the viewer to question the assumptions surrounding the "salt saga" in nutrition science and exercise skepticism when making dietary decisions.

I do damage control for the moment: I have reduced my working week to 20 hours.

Yes, and even the Internet as a place of human interaction.

I mean, are you still interested in reading news, blogs, forums or others if you have a slight suspicion that they might have been written by a probabilistic machine?

I don't.

>>If you want to know why wealth tends to concentrate over time, followed by a collapse, this is it.

Hi, do you mind to elaborate this a bit? I do not understand why before we have concentration and collapse later.

In my childhood I lived in a small town with old pipes that got clogged from time to time, we didn't call a worker to unblock them, we did it ourselves to save a few hundred euros, it wasn't so bad, you put a T-shirt around your mouth and nose and you did it.

We are losing not only the ability to do but the ability to imagine alternatives.

Wilhelm von Humboldt who inspired Stuart Mill, both liberalist (tradition that prompted the labour or land transaction) explained it before:

"Whatever does not spring from a man’s free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness …we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."

So here we are, selling our work and who knows what else.

The mismatch between personal interests and careers can be the elephant in the room to answer this question.

Who doubts this?

It can be. One man, one life. I would like to live other lives to be able to compare, because you can't choose what you don't know. I see advantages in both.

This is not correct.

We work like crazy[1], the machine should continue moving: we are fat but it costs us a lot.

[1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...

Idk tbh.