Shadow move outta canadia

move into australia

I will. I'll couch surf on Andrews couch

Figures the maid’s a canuck.

Don’t mind the couch wombats

The next question that follows is what should be the focus for mitigation of body count, whether an approach should focus on long term or short term casualty prevention. In considering this the short term body count being paramount would necessarily mean that the long term is less predictable, and vice versa.

I mean dude it’s a collapse, no ones gonna have control over the countires anymore

What's a countire

Groups of people will come together in the ashes of the old world but only few phoenixes will rise from it

*countries

I thought it was a vampire tire brand.

Well, we have a tendency to rush to stem the immediate bleed, but a group of any size, such as humanity, is only metaphorically bleeding and so it's counterintuitive to treat it as an organism in and of itself.

So I in approaching the what should be done, I don't consider triage as nearly as necessary as a long term treatment plan.

Ultimately, whether fair or not, the individuals lost in the overarching social collapse, aren't innocent parties to be protected at any cost. They are causal to the collapse of the overarching social structure.

I just hope that someone forged a meritocracy after the collapse and it rises as one of the phoenixes

bruh

you want a meritocracy

we finna have to force it

when the collpase comes it's finna be a free for all for the government

So the question is, how does one create a overarching social structure that is robust enough to not collapse? One must focus on creating such a overarching social structure one individual at a time.

gestalt consciousness., hive mind tier shit. otherwise the excessive difference in both genetic and environmental input between individuals will eventually always end up shifting any previously created arc and eventually destroy it

Catch me in voice chat some time and I’ll chew your ear off about meritocracy

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/wood.html

I disagree that this is necessary. What is necessary is not allowing people to trade freedom (responsibility and accountability) for security (privilege)

by not allowing them you are taking away their freedom to trade what they want

defeating your own point

They can attempt to sell, but no one should desire to buy. That is what should be made anathema

"should"

In attempting to sell, one doesn't value the freedom they have in the first place, so you haven't taken away something they never valued

anybody who wants power will desire to buy someone's freedom and give them security.

and men want power. because men are competitive. on so many different plains other that reproduction as well

again, defeats human nature

you just have to accept sometimes you have a golden age and eventually you have a dark age

The moment you attempt to trade your freedom for security, you deserve neither. Simply the attempt at such an exchange shifts one into a category that lacks the capacity to argue it's independent consciousness

even when human reproduction is solved by the artificial wombs

so what do you do with them

It defeats a proportion, but not the whole. At some point individuals have to turn on npcs

artificial wombs will mend the birthrate

but not the welfare state

in fact, it reinforces it

not if women can't vote