I don’t really see what that would help. I’d be angry all the time, and I’d seem like a judgemental prick to a lot of other people.

If I had an opportunity to cure people of wanting to do this, I would. When I have an opportunity to tactfully point it out, and that it’s irrational, I do. Otherwise, everyone I’ve ever met is part of one problem or another.

I’m not saying this is okay either, but it’s the way the world is, isn’t it? Humanity isn’t doing a great job overall, at least in an absolute sense, and part of that is that adults absolutely do buy stupid status symbols to flex on each other.

I think explaining is a very worthy pursuit. As for tolerating, I’m not actually in charge, so I don’t have a choice!

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Don’t you think there’s a human nature that’s not strictly learned? It seems to me that history repeats way more than it should if we were that good at changing.

Like, obviously, there’s variance at the individual level, but it seems like the population as a whole has striking similarities, regardless of where you travel or what era in history you’re reading about.

While there are numerous examples of such philosophies and cultures around the globe

Dovetailing into that, a philosophy is not a culture. Philosophies at best sightly influence cultures, as actually practiced, and even that is overblown. Since this is Lemmy, I’ll use the example of how well Western Christians follow teachings about not being greedy or whatever. Other cultures have similar facets.

More like, most common allele within the species.

What’s the culture where people don’t covet meaningless status symbols? Even hunter gatherer cultures have generated examples, and they can’t own much more than they can carry.

Soooo, adults?

Don’t pretend we’ve ever been better than that as a species. The exact form it takes changes (who does ermine fur anymore?) but the idea stays the same.

Once something becomes statusy, is seems pretty rare that it ever stops. You can’t outcompete Apple at being Apple, and to stay exclusive they can just keep prices up.

It genuinely was revolutionary when it came out. I guess they managed to leverage that into being a luxury brand, when no further world-breaking innovations were forthcoming. The only thing those really have to worry about is staying relevant, as opposed to going the way of fine china and monocles.

I love shoehorns and sneeze loudly.

It’s questionable whether it’s even a well-founded question because of this. Like, it depends on your choice of theories about ontology and epistemology. This shows up if you try to do math about it, which I mentioned a bit in my own reply.

Except then the same gods are really worried about what you eat, or do with your specific meat-based mammalian reproductive anatomy.

A remote, totally amoral deity a la Lovecraft is at least consistent with facts. Nobody wants to believe in that one, though. You could go polytheist to avoid immediate falsification, too.

This claim assumes that computers CAN get that complex (no indication that they could)

I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware…

I would hope that we wouldn’t build such a thing just out of ethical concerns for the inhabitants, but then again we’ve built a giant AI-training network with very little knowledge of if they have some kind of limited consciousness during the process.

I saw someone analyse this on YouTube once. As I remember it, if you assume two possibilities are equally likely until we have information favouring one or the other (the principle of indifference), it depends on if we make any simulated universes. If we do, there’s basically no way we’re in the first. Otherwise, there’s a chance this is the base reality.

One can question whether the principle of indifference applies here, though. Or even if a deeper reality we can never access counts as a an object you can talk about normally. For example, pragmatic epistemology would say no.

Boring standard screen-based stuff. I could dig out a board game if you really want, I guess.

Maybe you’ll like my dog?

deleted by creator

That’s still pretty good, Europe was yet to really recover from the collapse of Rome at that point. I’ll just call it rounding up.

Kids are also not cheap.

I’d be shocked if they had done no research at all.

Eh, that can be pretty complicated.

OP read the title wrong and then immediately commented, lol.

Doing it if you’re not sure at all sure seems like a bad idea, but can you ever be that sure about something you haven’t tried?

I’d add the stuff only people with kids understand to the “pros” list. The standard model human is biologically wired to find the experience rewarding, while you may or may not like horses as much as you think you would.

Is freezing eggs and getting the horse first an option? You can, indeed, sell it and try again later.

The actual choice is subjective, so I’ll echo that you shouldn’t let Lemmy decide for you. A lot of people are projecting their own preferences here. Or your partner for that matter.

Hmm, cathedral contemporaneous with the New Testament happening in the first place. Nimes?

It could be Greece too, I guess. Or maybe you’re rounding up, there’s more options then.