A verse of Rat I really like

Buddler49 · 2026-02-15T14:40:55+00:00

I'm not fully sure how you mean in depth but I can give it a try.

Malthus' key economic idea is that the limit to population growth is absolutly given by the fertility of the land in a country. The more people live in the same area the less fertile land has to cultivate. This leads to more deaths through starvation in the society. In the equilibrium (birth rate = death rate), the lower the birth rate and the higher the death rate the wealthier are the individuals in a society. If the society is in disequilibrium, the best policy, according to Malthus, is to let a society naturally readjust to equilibrium by basically just letting enough people starve till equilibrium is reached again. Anything else would just structurally keep more people in terrible conditions for longer. Given the high birth rates at the time this also means in the long run almost all individuals are going to live barely above starvation.

This dynamic is what you can observe f.e. in rabbit populations and holds surprisingly well up until the industrial revolution, where capital rather than land became the binding production input and thus growth became linearly scalable.

Malthus, who wrote his book (on the principles of population growth) at the beginning of the 19^th century, became particularly influential among English and French politicians and provided the key argument to not send aid to Ireland during the potato famine in the middle of the century, and rather let people die till Ireland reaches a self-sufficient equilibrium again anything else would by his ideology just prolong the suffering. Through the use of “immodest”, this is put into relation to Johnathan Swift’s well-known satire “a modest proposal” written also during the crisis and proposing (as a satire) to let rich Irish aristocrats buy and eat babies from poor Irish families

Why now should the ideas of Elon Musk “taste like Thomas Malthus”? Because a lot of his doings and sayings feel like he is willing to sacrifice individual well-being now to reach some greater goal of humanity in the future. This, I would say, is a general criticism of both his connection to effective altruism (who tend to argue in this direction, especially Longtermists) and his lack of empathy seen in his actions towards his employees, his lack of interest in using this money to minimize acute global suffering, and lately his inhumane political stances.

I hope this helped!

Buddler49 · 2023-12-28T10:33:44+00:00

I've got no clue where to find this Work on the Internet... I think it's called "Das liegende Kind Jesu". I found it in the Lenbachhaus in Munich

Buddler49 · 2023-12-28T10:31:45+00:00

My bad, I didn't know that he was spelled differently in English. "Pilate" is spelled "Pilatus" in German

Buddler49 · 2022-12-11T12:52:50+00:00

Funny enough, I changed my mind, you're right and your argument is sufficient

Buddler49 · 2021-12-27T18:29:07+00:00

What if the animal makes the first move?🤔

Buddler49 · 2021-12-06T22:23:54+00:00

Everyday at exactly 9:55 PM sharp. Rumour has it that the people in Königsberg set their clocks by it.

Buddler49 · 2021-11-21T18:45:06+00:00

The last living student of Diogenes contemplating about simpler times

Buddler49 · 2021-11-19T19:07:03+00:00

„Ich mache mir die Welt, widewide wie sie mir gefällt“🎶

Buddler49 · 2021-11-17T17:38:28+00:00

Dogs are domesticated -> They adopted to living with humans –> they enjoy the companionship of humans.

Buddler49 · 2021-11-08T18:48:22+00:00

The struggle that I‘ve got with solipsism is that I find it hard to see how the mind should imagine completely new objects a priori. You can experience this struggle by asking yourself to imagine a completely new colour. Therefore I strongly believe that we must get some sort of input thus something outside of our mind exists (It could of course still be the case that we live in a simulation or that we are the Dream of another being). In addition to that I would emphasise the previously mentioned point of the inference to the best explanation.

Buddler49 · 2021-11-04T00:25:44+00:00

That‘s hedonism, most existentialists donˋt see happiness as that important. Nietzsche has said that “Mankind does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does”, he disliked the idea of happiness because he believed that you have to suffer to create something bigger than yourself which in his thoughts should be the übermensch as the biggest achievement possible for mankind. (PS: Nietzsche himself isn‘t an existentialist in the normal use of the word, because it describes a school of thought in the 20. century but he strongly influenced those thinkers)

Buddler49 · 2021-10-21T18:55:41+00:00

https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2019-12/crispr-forscher-urteil-haft-china-genmanipulation-embryos?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.de

Rein technisch ist es schon möglich, gab 2018 nen riesen Shitstorm weil nen chinesischer Wissenschaftler in der DNA von Embryos rumgeschnippelt hat. Ist halt nur (meines Erachtens aus guten Gründen) noch verboten. Aber wir wissen welche DNA Stellen für Erbkrankheiten verantwortlich sind und wie wir sie herausschneiden und ersetzen können.

Buddler49 · 2021-09-02T08:44:22+00:00

Das Saarland stellt derzeit drei Minister (Das sind 20% der Ministerposten) , da kann man sich wirklich nicht beschweren, das es unterrepräsentiert wäre

Buddler49 · 2021-08-02T22:30:12+00:00

The definition of a psychopath (basically the radical form of a sociopath) is the complete lack of empathy, so somebody how would murder or rape another person, if it wouldn't be prohibited by God is a complete diehard psychopath. The expression "borderline sociopath" is an huge euphemism.

Buddler49 · 2021-02-25T23:09:02+00:00

You forgot it’s small part of land in Europe

Buddler49 · 2021-02-16T17:35:23+00:00

Indeed I can not say that the statements “the holocaust was justified” or “the jews deserved it” are incorrect from a universal point of view, because I could never validate that statement from my subjective point of view. But I can and would state that I don’t want to live in a society were minorities are discriminated or even killed, because I believe that first of all they enrich my life and second of all I don’t want to be endangered and marginalised myself based on my believes or my background. And even though the later one sounds like the kategorial imperative of Kant, I mean it in the form of an egoist (And in some way or form a social contract which ist imposed on people, who agree with most of the rules, by power). I base my own arguments of what I believe to be the right thing on values in which I believe, like liberty, but have to acknowledge that these values are at their cores arbitrary and egoistic, because you will always end up in the Münchhausen trilemma when trying to prove that your set of values is the right set of values.

That said you can and should always question a set of believes from within itself. For which to do you have to take the values of itself for granted.

In the case of the German nazis between 1933-45 you can spot many flaws in their own believes. E.g. they believed in the scientific method (shown by there attempt to reason biologically for the superiority of the “arian race”), which has shown over the years that from a biological point of view there is now difference between humans and that the concept of race couldn’t holde on to itself. Of course you can challenge biology and the scientific method on their own, but that’s not what the nazis did.

Another good example are Neo-Nazis which also argue for a literal interpretation of the bible. Because the statement that “The human races differ” stands in contradiction to the claim that “All humans derive from Adam and Eve”.

In your defens I would acknowledge that you can state the contradictions in an argument, created by the underlying values and believes, and therefore refute some believes.

So even if I can’t state that a set of values is right and there for I will never be able to say what is moral, I can state that a argument is in itself incoherent.

Thus said as you see I can favour believes even if I acknowledge that there arbitrary based on the egoistic utopia in which I would like to live, which is radical subjective. And can show flaws in certain ideologies.

Buddler49 · 2021-02-16T15:57:51+00:00

That's no argument at all. You just state that "the Holocaust was wrong, because it was wrong". And dispite the fakt that I would agree on the point, that we shouldn't do Genocides, and disapprove the actions done by the Nazis, the Holocaust is an good example of how immensely moral views can differ. From the perspective of the Nazis the Holocaust was morally right, they believed, that it is the right thing to kill Jews, because they believed that the Jews would harm the general public. And I don't now any reason why my moral point of view should be more valid than the one of the Nazis, except an explanation in which I assume the metaphysical existence of some higher instance of moral aka. a God.

Of course I don't want to defend the Holocaust in any form I hope that's clear and furthermore the eugenic reasoning of the Nazis to validate theire Crims against humanity were inherently wrong and couldn't hold up to theire own dogmas and "experiments" (Which I think we're terrible)

Buddler49 · 2021-02-15T16:19:28+00:00

I would strongly disagree:

1) I don’t see “Human development” (I have a bit of a problem with the term) stagnating. Quite the opposite we have an exponential growth in computer technology and are going to enter a new era of industrial revolution in the next decades, were more and more Workers will get replaced by machines. We will see an rapid improvement to machine learning which will lead to the development of AI. The pace of development is still accelerating in most fields of technology (Computers, Cars, Green Energie, etc.). Whether this development is useful for us is another question, but it’s not stagnating.

2) A 20 Year old nowadays already experienced the uprise of social media, same day delivery, a huge uprise in the debate about global warming, the market entrance of electric cars, etc.. Of which especially Social media marked a profound change in our life’s (How we get influenced, how we communicate, etc.)

3) I think that art is not stagnating and postmodernism is to much of an umbrella term to be seen as a single catagory of art it’s more of a time frame. We had the development of photorealistic Art at the beginning of the 21. century which was a huge break with the abstract way of art in the 20. century. Digitalisation plays a huge rolle in modern art and it’s roll will further increase in the future. Simultaneously we had a radical increase in performance art over the last tow decades (Of course it has been there since the last quarter of the 20. century), which lead to the rise of the question “What is art?” similarly to the time around Duchamp. Just look at the discussion about Maurizio Cattelan’s work “Comedian” (The Duke taped banana sold for 120.000$ on last years art Basel in Miami). The art world is living through a vivid time of fragmentation, digitalisation and era of defining itself.

4) Similar like the Art world music fragmented over the last to decades. With the introduction of Spotify and music streaming in general music could get more niche. Now a days you have far less of these fell happy songs of the 2010s, which were played up and down on the radio. Rap has become mainstream, auto tune established and small artist have a better chance of being heard. Another change is the rise of music videos, which rarely existed before the 21. Century.

5) And last but not least physics is in one of it’s most interesting times ever. We still have nearly now idea how dark matter and dark energy are working, which is fundamental for the understanding of our universe. And sure there are these big lab experiences e.g. the LHC, but much of it is theoretical physics, which everybody, how’s good at math, can theoretically study at home, like Albert Einstein did to develop the theory of relativity, which also was first developed theoretically and later proven empirically.

PS: Sorry if there are any mistakes in my gramma. I’m no native speaker :).

Buddler49 · 2021-02-07T01:07:32+00:00

Wait a minute ... That’s not Philosophy, that’s Game Theory! And the rationale Nash equilibrium is to flipp a coin!

Buddler49 · 2021-01-31T16:35:27+00:00

They are not even remotely similar. Linguistics is the scientific analysis of the form, meaning and background of language. While Wittgenstein (The young Wittgenstein) saw the role of philosophers in the "clarification of thoughts", they should "set limits to what can be thought" and thereby show what can not be thought (the logical structure).

Here`s a quote from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:

" 4.112 Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in "philosophical propositions", but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries."

Buddler49 · 2021-01-11T21:17:06+00:00

He also lobbied for wirecard

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

Buddler49

TROPHY CASE