OTF Thinking Thread

#427 quite a few responses there. I think a lot of people take a humanistic approach; we exist to help others and improve the world

People say banning meat is unrealistic, but we already restrict plastic, smoking, drugs, pesticides, etc. so I don't think it is actually impossible, we are just afraid to face it because of the current culture against vegans and vegetarians.

#426 In what way? Because there’s a lot of different ways that could be interpreted…

If you mean how we might intend to ban meat, there are a variety of ways. Perhaps phase it out. But if you mean you don't fully understand the question, I think:

Meat should be forbidden to be bought, sold, or produced.

and no, I don't think it is impractical.

And it would be good for health, environmental and ethical reasons.

“Personal choice” isn’t an argument when your choice causes measurable harm. Why does meat get a pass when other harmful products don’t?

Hint: this is more of a logic question than calculus

I don’t know much calculus, but is option one the answer?

no I don’t think so. However currently I am working on my own understanding of the question as well, so I am not 100%.

Yeah I just checked and it definitely can’t be 1.

hint 2: f(x) MUST be an integer for ALL integers that are passed into f(x).

oh yeah and f’(x) means derivative, just like d/dx

"blame" and "praise" are just social tools, not descriptions of a person's ultimate, uncaused responsibility.

#446 agreed. They are often used for minipulation, and people who are really independent should be able to see past them.

A certain philosophical proposition would agree with this. This being:

We are not responsible for our actions because our actions are the sum of previous events.

We usually condemn the rich for being too greedy, but it is often seen how the greed benefits society as a whole.

First remember this only all possible because of credit and trust. Before credit, you could only pay with money you already had. After, with trust in the future, and credit, there was a special type of money, which allowed you to pay for things with money that you would have in the future. For example. Let’s say à contractor, Mr Contract gets £1mil from his first job. He deposits it with a banker, Mr Bank. Mr Doughnut, an entrepreneur, wants to make a bakery for £1mil, so takes out a loan from Bank to pay Contract. Contract deposits the money with Bank. Notice how Contract has £2mil in his account, but only £1mil in the vaults. This is only possible because of trust in the future, and credit.

From this à cycle can be applied.

Much credit —-> fast societal growth —-> much trust in the future ——> much credit ( etc.)

This is because for example, a landlord can use excess money je has to employ assistants, creating more money to employ more assistants, increasing employment. Along with this, such growth in the economic pie can increase immigration. Of course this only works if the rich use their money to build new factories or hire new people, not spending frivolously.

So just remember : egoism is altruism.

Essentially, we need a capitalistic system and it is the most practical in my opinion

In a capitalist society, individuals pursue their own self-interest, but because markets require voluntary exchange, their pursuit of profit forces them to create value for others. As a result, egoistic actions unintentionally produce altruistic outcomes - innovation, jobs, services, and overall economic growth- although this effect is not guaranteed and depends on ethical boundaries and regulation.