Comments by "Meowmeow" (@mouwersor) on "Do We Live in a Brave New World? - Aldous Huxley's Warning to the World" video.

Most individuals just absorb whatever culture they're given, but nowadays there is just more top-down control in society regarding this process. Unless we can somehow make everyone a lot smarter and better at critical thinking/reflection, which seems impossible and there is even a strong dysgenic effect, the most desirable solution is buying land and starting a community where you can control (with a group of others) who you let in and you can start with basic tenets for your culture. The increased homogenization of culture through globalization and the internet has had many terrible effects. Escape from it.
115
@walterdrinker if that happens I'm unsubscribing... Unoriginal shit like this being applauded is one of the many reasons for the problems the video talks about
12
There's no reason a lack of religion and a belief in objective morality causes mediocrity and striving for an easy life. Just read Nietzsche bro
7
Also interesting, Huxleys utopia The island: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)
6
@FutureMindset Sure, I can agree with that. The masses need moral guidance, they can't figure that shit out on their own. It does not have to come from any organized religion tho
5
People are more depressed than ever.. So it doesn't exactly make people happy, only (sometimes) in the short term. The current zeitgeist values 'resting happiness' (endorphin) over 'accomplishment happiness' (dopamine) and 'spiritual happiness' (serotonin), this causes people to stagnate.
4
Why
4
@seanomaille8157 "Check out who is behind this channel." Only thing I can find is that the people behind the channel are just 2 brothers with a passion for ideas like this.
3
@natashamudford4011 What does that even mean.. You know people die right..
1
@natashamudford4011 Why even assume a soul? There is no evidence for it. I'd rather start with a proper model of the world before deciding what to do with it
1
@natashamudford4011 Why do you equate thinking/feeling to a soul? A soul entails a lot more than that
1
@117Industries First of all this rests on the assumption that morality coming from religious is necessarily useful. But as is the case with all memeplexes they primarily exist because they're good at existing, they do not have to actually benefit the individual. And seeing as many of the moral guidance from religion can be boiled down to slave-morality I don't think large parts are that desirable to have in society. What is true is that the trial-and-error processes though history have lead to moral values in culture that at least help the culture in continuing it's existence, for better or for worse, and there is a fair bit that is useful at the very least in that sense. Untangling the web of morality and reintegrating the useful parts in a new framework, which is easily communicable as well, is an interesting task for modern philosophers. "but then what effects are you aiming for and why? And to whose ends?" This is the easier part. People want happiness (also in the broader form as meaning/fulfilment) so we naturally want guidelines, when we think through them rationally, that help us be happier for longer.
1
@natashamudford4011 A soul would be the essential nature of a person, existing in a way beyond the non-essential physical stuff we an see and measure. There is no proof for such a thing.
1
@natashamudford4011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul " the soul is the incorporeal essence of a living being." " Do you think that aspect of a person just dissolves away into nothing?" When the brain stops functioning (that's what being death is...) then obviously the brain can't reason and feel anymore.... duh
1
@natashamudford4011 This is just to show that I am using the most commonly accepted meanings of the words... You should consider changing yours. Imagine going to the store, asking for apples and getting mad because you aren't given peaches (which you actually meant according to the common meanings).
1
@natashamudford4011 Okay let's ignore the bullshit semantical issue of 'soul' and reframe the question: By what mechanism exactly do we live on after death?
1
@natashamudford4011 Or a process or whatever word you could use if you haven't learned the common meaning of 'mechanism' either... But I was talking about living on after death and how it happens, however you want to call that doesn't matter to me. Now do you or do you not have an answer, please stop twirling around the core issue
1
@natashamudford4011 I don't care for external links here because there are thousands of sources against and for any major issue and the bigger problem is that they don't communicate back. DO YOU HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS OR NOT. pls stop wasting time
1
@natashamudford4011 And what makes you think NDE's are not just generated inside the brain itself? I think you heavily underestimate the subjectivity of our experience. When people do DMT and see interdimensional machine elves do you also think that is proof those exist? And 'faith' is obviously not an argument in itself, people have faith in many things which taken together contradict each other... (one tiny example: Hinduism and Islam is not compatible, yet both have millions of very faithful followers. Faith says nothing. Try having faith in something you can experiment on. Some people have faith they win the lottery, most don't.)
1
So where is this god?
1
@monsieurdargason6874 What part exactly would add something to my knowledge?
1
@deadreckoning6288 The trick might be to have one 'benevolent dictator', the person responsible for starting and (partially) financing the commune who just wants to see it flourish. Sure there is a chance he/she might not be fit for it, but when he/she is you don't have the risk of internal power struggles tearing the group apart or the original ideal being lost. But what do you think increases the chances of such a commune working in the long-term?
1