How is race social 🤔

Colleges already train young people and have substantial small community presence. Not exactly sure how you see that as a change.

There’s also a reason urban core jobs tend to be emphasised and that’s because they’re hyper productive and allow massive scales of efficiency for infrastructure spend. Picking fruit in woop woop requires a massive amount of machinery, automation and management to support anything like what what we expect in terms of modern living standards or requires some hipster earning ludicrously large amount of money that they can afford to have someone picking artisanal spring watered bullshit

In doing that however every mile of road, pipes or fibre is serving rurally maybe 100 people. In urban areas you can go orders of magnitude above that

@Fionn germany does this sort of

You have the choice between 3-4 paths, one of which is a simple internship which actually includes things like software development, one is uni, one is unskilled labor, forgot the others

You also start to specialize way before turning 18, unlike the USA where you get a jew "critical thinking" education till 18 unless you graduate early.

Does America not allow vocational training to go towards schooling credits?

Race is both

@CronoSaturn very rare

Generally no, if it's a more prestigious university (even state schools), generally yes, if it's a shitty community college

Weird. American education is in need of pretty major reform though. That’s pretty common elsewhere

yes

fucking yes

at the very least kill common core

I mean a few states i heard are already offing Common Core

Common Core cannot be killed fast enough

Many people call Hitler a nationalist (maybe sometimes from the ideology national socialism) in my opinon a nationalist wants to keep borders strong. Hitler wanted to invade at least all of europe making him a imperialist doesn't it? Opinions?

He wasn't the one letting people in.

@Just a weirdo what do you mean?

Nationalists tend to consider the land and natural resources as a intrinsecal right of the people who reside in determined territory, but that doesn't necessarily means that they won't invade territories.
A nation is made of people, culture and territory, Hitler expanded his territory to theoretically increase the survivability of his people and his culture, putting them over other people.

Yes, i lost my connection and had to wait

@Räserneger

<#508381442942959616>

The two of you seem to be using border strength in different contexts, weirdo in terms of immigration and raserneger in terms of established boundaries between countries.

I’ll be answering in terms of the latter as that seems to be how the question was posed. It’s a tricky one as imperialism isn’t well defined and what a nation is suffers similarly. If you consider imperialism interference by a foreign power on another power considered sovereign then yes. Imperialism is often contrasted to nationalism in that imperial systems advocate rule over other nations, often retaining the national structures in order to do so. Hitler may not have considered himself as doing so as he saw his actions of uniting a single “nation”, defined on ethnic lines. He seemed to be completely apathetic, if not antithetic, to extending any form of real governance to other people’s beyond perhaps slavery

In those terms, as weirdo seems to argue, it would be more accurate to understand hitler as an expansionary nationalist, rather than an imperialist

@Just a weirdo oh ok

I understand 🤔

@CronoSaturn Yes

That's intresting

Could you say it's two opposite ideas crossed?

A real nationalist wouldn't want to expand right? And even if he as a nationalist wanted europe as a country we don't know if Hitler may had plans to expand outside europe. And since he treated people of less european race worse wouldn't that mean he's a imperialist, taking over and enslaving countrys?

Helloooo

@Räserneger I don’t know if it’s useful to think of imperialism and nationalism in these terms. Were Canada and Australia slaves of the British empire? The free cities of the HRE? In contrast, America was certainly guilty of holding slaves prior to any real overseas holdings and it’s difficult to argue that national movements are not often characterised by notes of racial supremacy, Asia especially is rife with that collation even today.

I think it’s more effective to think of nationalism as the belief that the interests of a particular group, whether that be along civic, ethnic, religious lines depending on the flavour, should be advanced over others. This would be in contrast to internationalism, which would promote the interests of mankind as a whole over any single group. Imperialism would be characterised as an extension of power across groups, this may be for the interest of a particular group over other groups, for the mutual interest of those groups or for the believed good of all. If I were to choose the opposite here it would be isolationism, the refusal to be involved in the affairs of other groups. In this frame I don’t see nationalism and imperialism as being mutually exclusive, although it would not describe hitler’s ideology, which did not seek to project power across groups, but to the exclusion of other groups. @Just a weirdo ‘s argument serves to explain to what ends these means were used to serve.

It didn’t do so very *effectively*, but that’s not what we’re discussing

@Aki I’ve moved this to serious as convo in chat has moved on.

So if I’m understanding you right your not using evolutionary psychology to determine a moral system to optimise for evolutionary success rather using an understanding of evolutionary psychology to understand our current behaviours to inform policy. I don’t disagree with that. We can’t do that effectively however without an eye to the environment this is being implemented in. Understanding that people tend to be loss averse has an entirely different impact on an insurance salesman compared to an investment broker, for example, despite the massive similarities that otherwise exist between these roles in the same time period. It’s hard to imagine anything but the most superficial shit could be carried over in optimising the behaviours of people in these roles to, say, the life of a medieval merchant. Ignoring the environment or context in applying these understandings then doesnt provide an effective understanding of what the impact of these decisions would be then.

```You have somehow managed to detach your moral position from the material world```
That’s the thing though aki, its precisely because my morality is grounded in the material world that I dont expect we can improve ourselves morally without improving ourselves materially. Appreciating our evolutionary roots we have real difficulties acting morally with a brain wired to, without much exaggeration, chimp out. Our entire history has relied on building systems to augment our natural capacity, this is effectively what laws, contracts, cultural norms are right? External means of augmenting our decision making to make it more rational and effective. So why would we stop there? We have an increasing capacity to make in roads closer and closer to our decision making cycle and to improve our capacity not only morally, but mentally, in terms of memory, etc etc. I mean using a mobile you can access an almost unprecedented amount of information, keep track of huge amounts of events and details on a level thats just not possible with our biology alone. So why would we stop there? Given that improving and implementing this technology can make us more effective, more considerate, all around better people, is there not an imperative to extend that technology in a responsible, voluntary way even internal to the decision making cycle?

Engineers arn’t magicians, they cant change reality much as saying so would prolly get a certain irish fuck hot and heavy and I dont think its a substitute to a discussion of what is moral, but a means of more effectively taking action towards the moral betterment of all people. Humanism informs transhumanism, they are in the same tradition but I don’t think given our history its accurate to say that the human condition is unchanging and that the moral requirements while grounded in the same principles won’t change to reflect an inevitable shift for the better

@CronoSaturn _"Understanding that people tend to be loss averse has an entirely different impact on an insurance salesman compared to an investment broker, for example, despite the massive similarities that otherwise exist between these roles in the same time period. It’s hard to imagine anything but the most superficial shit could be carried over in optimising the behaviours of people in these roles to, say, the life of a medieval merchant. Ignoring the environment or context in applying these understandings then doesnt provide an effective understanding of what the impact of these decisions would be then."_

I am at a loss at what you are trying to say here. The specifics of the trade are a learned behav so your example is simply not related to what I said.

Regardless, we live in the day and age when our environment is of our own making so there are no reasons why we couldn't reshape it (both in a political and cultural sense) to better fit into what we are.

_"That’s the thing though aki, its precisely because my morality is grounded in the material world that I dont expect we can improve ourselves morally without improving ourselves materially."_

How can you **improve** relative morality in a material world? Who is there to judge what constitutes an improvement?

_"Appreciating our evolutionary roots we have real difficulties acting morally with a brain wired to, without much exaggeration, chimp out.... "_

There is no agreement on what constitutes an improvement. You can predispose people genetically to spend their whole day/whole week/whole month at work and be happy about it. You can predispose em to show hatred and disdain towards those who do not share their lifestyle. You can make em in a happy go lucky genetically predisposed slaves. Is it an improvement? It certainly is more efficient! If you feel there is something wrong with it, then maybe your morality is outdated and not designed in a lab.

The morality that you aspire to uphold is not the universal truth of the world, but a physical process that in itself can become redundant in the environment that we are proudly heading towards. People are not individuals with free will but crafty biological tools... and the individuality and personality are the result of the chaotic nature of the process that created them. When this process is no more the illusion will not be needed and "will have to be discarded" as you like to say because "it will no longer be optimal". Finally a democracy is not the universally true and moral system, but a form of organization that is optimal and sustainable in a specific environment... and it won't be sustainable anymore in the future.