Your response seems to be some knee jerk reactions laced with some personal insults,
@exchemist . It seems I have hit a nerve. Assure you it was unintentional.
I will first start with your “first world” point which may clear up the rest. You say:
Unlike you, the OP understands the distinction between practical/technological problems and Psychological problems. The words “practical/technological” can also be substituted with words like mundane, routine, etc. They are different words for grouping or distinguishing between all problems that aren’t related to the sense of self (Psyche). Some examples: If one is challenged by a lack of money, this is a practical problem. However if one is grieved by the lack of money then it’s a psychological problem. Similarly, if one does not have the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothes, this a practical problem. However, If one is psychologically insecure because they aren’t “comparable” or “better” than the Jones, then this a psychological problem.
The OP was trying to say that such practical or mundane problems can be considered as secondary problems challenging humanity. We can do something about these, as we have. We can have better medicine, better houses, better computers etc.. But where we are failing is with the psyche of man, which seems to be the primary challenge. His inner life, so to say. Evidently man’s inner life is one of disorder, conflict, and suffering. This inner disorder is reflected in the outer disorder that we witness.
The OP has briefly touched on how some have enshrined science as their newest god, and has hinted at this form of conditioned bias. The OP isn’t interested in your speculations of what science can or cannot do but, OP is willing to look at the facts of what science actually does and has done. Moreover, your gibberish about reproducibility is misplaced, vague, impractical, and out of context. The ever changing inner life of man isn’t unfolding within a lab of your construction, and under fixed variables. Furthermore, predictions can be made of that which can be measured. As mentioned earlier, there are human aspects which defy any measurement. But see, the OP wasn’t talking about predicting and measuring, as that would mean, reducing humanity to be nothing more than machines, and the idea is simply laughable if we take into account the evidence (or the lack thereof) of your GOD (science). But I understand you are speaking from your acquired beliefs/conditioning, and simply defending your GOD.
'More of this and less of that' has no real meaning. This idea of relative freedom is nothing new, and doesn’t seem to have changed the human condition. There is a reason for that. The analogy of painting/arranging the prison while still living in it, best describes what you are saying.
Again, these aren’t claims but observable facts that can be sustained by numerous real life examples. In fact you don't have to go far. Just observing the discussions in RF is enough. The OP has gone into why we don’t see these facts. Anyone that understands how conformity works should know this. The word conformity itself points to its nature. I was having a brief conversation with another poster regarding conformity on this thread
If you put your religious book away for a moment. And regarding “I need to provide evidence”, thanks for the laughs. I don’t need to do anything. I am not trying to change yours or anyone else’s beliefs. You are welcome to them. And I have also previously stated debates don’t interest me, so this isn’t a debate from me. These are serious issues that go beyond your need for intellectual simulation and entertainment. This is part of the walk. Not simply talk the talk and go home do your BS, which i suspect what you are about.
I could have gone into your questions but it will be a regrettable waste of my energy and time. A disrespect to the sincerity of the OP. Your conduct, your lack of skill on how to come to a dialogue, and your obvious insincerity does not inspire me to continue with you.
