The subjective theory that there will be a future? Or their subjective theory on what to do about it, which you are pitting against your own subjective theory on what to do about it? What is objective about your claim that there are many ways to help as many people as possible that don’t involve any hardships?

You’re following the same train of thought that justifies a lot of the rich futurists’ actions. It’s objectively better to help 20 million people down the line even if it costs 1 million lives today, right? I mean, net 19 million. To me, that’s simple.

That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff.

Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes

If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers

Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.

From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense.

That’s a fine opinion to hold.

There were no CEOs nor governments.

There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?

the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies

Stop spitballing history to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology

because that is the most efficient way.

Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities. The most efficient way to do what?

The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force.

I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.

All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.

You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…

Boil, rice in, lid on, low heat for 18 minutes, off for 8 minutes, lid off, fluff with fork. No watching. If you burn some, lower your “low”. If you’re getting crazy and making some basmati or rosematta you just look up how much time your new strain of rice needs. If you have an always-too-hot electric stove I’m sorry I lied; I’ve been there, and I would probably buy a rice cooker too.

I actually just bought a pair of porta pros three days ago—any chance you recall what pads you upgraded to? I’ve mostly seen recommendations for Yaxi

That is incorrect, like incorrectly referring to the agricultural practices only in the past tense, or incorrectly lumping all peoples who lived in the Americas prior to European colonization into one generic group. The fact that both viewpoints are not equally correct is what makes it a correction.

Changing the past tense to present tense (these people and practices are still very real, they are not just part of “the past”) is a correction.

I don’t think men on the internet say “Epstein didn’t kill himself” because they want justice for him. That meme was to drive home that he was likely killed to ensure his silence and protect guilty gov’t officials and multinational executives

My wife, who works at a college, was recently trying to locate some information from an old college newspaper that may not have been digitized yet and used their new work AI for help finding it. It directed her to the school’s archives, but provided made-up contact info for the office, and also recommended she contact herself.