Posts by Sam Martinez9

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, it's when he starts looking at particle properties and processes through the lens of Eastern mystical traditions. He talks about a cosmic dance where particles are basically "singing their songs forever." Then he ties all that back to the dance of Shiva and stuff like that.

I'm not just making up my own interpretations of the book's take on matter. Capra draws those parallels point-blank, so I'm genuinely curious which book you actually read. My copy even has a subtitle that says 'An Exploration of Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.' Plus, the preface literally states the book is for readers interested in Eastern mysticism and claims that those traditions provide a "beautiful philosophical framework that can embrace our most advanced theories about the physical world."

To my mind, that sounds more like a metaphor, yet such a comparison doesn't actually distort reality. Elementary particles truly do move in a manner akin to a dance, and they exhibit this same motion throughout the entire observable universe. Therefore, calling this movement a 'cosmic dance' remains a perfectly accurate description.

For me, true mysticism would involve him claiming that Shiva herself actually triggered that dance, or that she is choreographing the steps, or something along those lines.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, it's when he starts looking at particle properties and processes through the lens of Eastern mystical traditions. He talks about a cosmic dance where particles are basically "singing their songs forever." Then he ties all that back to the dance of Shiva and stuff like that.

I'm not just making up my own interpretations of the book's take on matter. Capra draws those parallels point-blank, so I'm genuinely curious which book you actually read. My copy even has a subtitle that says 'An Exploration of Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism.' Plus, the preface literally states the book is for readers interested in Eastern mysticism and claims that those traditions provide a "beautiful philosophical framework that can embrace our most advanced theories about the physical world."

I haven't read Tao physics, so it’s entirely possible that it bridges the gap between mysticism and physics. I am currently reading I Ching and Hidden Connections. Both were written after Tao physics and serve as a sort of expansion upon it. They follow a similar structure—starting with physics, moving into biology, and eventually addressing society, all interconnected. To be precise, biology emerges from physics, and society (or economics) emerges from both biology and physics. I haven't finished them yet, but I don't see much mysticism here, even if there are passing mentions of Budo, Buddhism, or Eastern philosophy.

It seems you've formed your entire opinion of Capra based on just one of his books, which I don't think is particularly wise.

While Capar does critique mechanism and the Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, that doesn't make him a mystic. In fact, he isn't even unique in making that critique; many others do the same.

For him, the natural sciences—physics and biology—are the foundation. When he discusses Eastern philosophy, he integrates it into the framework of physics and biology rather than twisting science to fit mysticism.

He even admits that his ideas and theories aren't entirely unique and can be found in the work of other scientists and philosophers, though I personally found them quite refreshing.

Take Life, for instance: when discussing how it emerges and its fundamental prerequisites, many would argue that a living organism is defined by having DNA. However, dead organisms possess DNA as well...

Gerald Jackson48 said:It’s been a long time since I picked up his 'Quantum physics,' but I definitely remember how he tries to wrap Western scientific theories inside Eastern mystical traditions. I'm not saying the book is bad because of that. It's just that the ideas lean heavily toward mysticism, and "Eastern mysticism" is pretty much one of the main pillars of the whole book.

Once again, I’m clearly out of the loop here. Which specific ideas of his are leaning toward mysticism? I mean, give me something concrete. Like, *he wrote X, and to me, X qualifies as mysticism.*

Take his section on biology, life, and living organisms, for instance. He argues that living beings should be viewed strictly as processes in constant interaction with their environment. Every organism—from a single bacterium to a human being—isn't just a solid object walled off from its surroundings; we are in a continuous state of exchange, pulling nutrients in through permeable membranes and pushing waste back out. With single-celled organisms, that process is pretty easy to visualize, but when you get into complex multicellular organisms, you have to account for more than just chemical exchange; there's the entire social component to consider as well. To some readers, even that single perspective could be interpreted as mysticism.

Harold Doyle3 said:Have you ever picked up L. Lederman's *The God Particle*?
Honestly, that book blew me away... and it was just plain fun.
It's one of those page-turners you can't put down.
"If the universe is the answer, then what exactly is the question?" 🤔

I don't think I have, though I can't say for certain. No matter—I'll add it to my reading list for when I have more downtime.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I wouldn't say I've moved past him, but I do think it's useful to understand the perspective someone uses to interpret the world. Capra often falls into that category of authors who have wandered way past the "scientific boundary." Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up guest-starring on a late-night talk show hosted by someone like Joe Rogan.

Penrose, on the other hand, stays closer to the line. Sure, he’s been lumped in with some "crackpot" theories occasionally, but it's usually because he gives those fringe theorists plenty of ammunition rather than being a crackpot himself.

Based on what I've read of his work, I don't really see him that way. Could you elaborate a bit more on what specifically gave you that impression?

jadeheron5 said:It’s possible he truly loved her, but she just wasn't on his level. And then there's her—just an average woman expecting those standard gestures of affection that your typical guy would offer. He couldn't bring himself to do that; to him, it felt trivial, almost patronizing. So, her entire world basically imploded because she felt worthless and replaceable, which led to all those emotional outbursts.

You don't need to be a philosopher to see this; you just need enough life experience to realize that meeting basic survival needs is the foundation of existence. You have to secure food, shelter, clothing, and shoes first... only then can you move on to philosophy, athletics, or the arts.

People who fail to grasp this lack maturity and depth. In my view, it was Socrates who was immature and unprepared for reality, not his wife.

jadeheron5 said:I think it’s largely irrelevant... I suppose if someone wants to be considered a respected member of society, they ought to have had a wife, but that's not really the point. It’s about the spectrum of thought.

The average person mostly looks inward, focusing on themselves and anyone who directly impacts them. So, an average person is usually preoccupied with hierarchy, power, self-interest—figuring out who can help them reach their specific goals. But for someone with a much higher intellect, that way of thinking is incredibly narrow. Honestly, they aren't even living in the same world.

That’s why it’s so easy to spot when someone is just average. They get caught up in questions like, "Who’s to blame for his marriage?" or "Did he choose this himself?" That's that narrow-mindedness at work—projecting your own limited intellect onto others through questions that are tied strictly to your own perceived interests. That's just how that level of thinking operates.

Take, for instance, a person with an IQ70. We’re talking about someone we might describe as slow, perhaps struggling with basic math and things like that. Just consider the sphere of thought available to such a person compared to an average person with an IQ of 100.

Now, imagine someone with an IQ of 150. It is a completely different cognitive system altogether. The sphere in which their brain operates is vastly larger; they process a much greater volume of information simultaneously. To them, the way an average person thinks—our way, if you will—is simply a minor, insignificant topic, even though for the average person, it revolves around their entire existence.

If it isn't relevant, there’s really no point in bringing it up.

jadeheron5 said:I think it’s largely irrelevant... I suppose if someone wants to be considered a respected member of society, they ought to have had a wife, but that's not really the point. It’s about the spectrum of thought.

The average person mostly looks inward, focusing on themselves and anyone who directly impacts them. So, an average person is usually preoccupied with hierarchy, power, self-interest—figuring out who can help them reach their specific goals. But for someone with a much higher intellect, that way of thinking is incredibly narrow. Honestly, they aren't even living in the same world.

That’s why it’s so easy to spot when someone is just average. They get caught up in questions like, "Who’s to blame for his marriage?" or "Did he choose this himself?" That's that narrow-mindedness at work—projecting your own limited intellect onto others through questions that are tied strictly to your own perceived interests. That's just how that level of thinking operates.

Take, for instance, a person with an IQ70. We’re talking about someone we might describe as slow, perhaps struggling with basic math and things like that. Just consider the sphere of thought available to such a person compared to an average person with an IQ of 100.

Now, imagine someone with an IQ of 150. It is a completely different cognitive system altogether. The sphere in which their brain operates is vastly larger; they process a much greater volume of information simultaneously. To them, the way an average person thinks—our way, if you will—is simply a minor, insignificant topic, even though for the average person, it revolves around their entire existence.

We actually know enough about that era to write about what really happened, rather than just speculating on what might have been. You just have to put in the work and do some actual reading.

jadeheron5 said:I think it’s largely irrelevant... I suppose if someone wants to be considered a respected member of society, they ought to have had a wife, but that's not really the point. It’s about the spectrum of thought.

The average person mostly looks inward, focusing on themselves and anyone who directly impacts them. So, an average person is usually preoccupied with hierarchy, power, self-interest—figuring out who can help them reach their specific goals. But for someone with a much higher intellect, that way of thinking is incredibly narrow. Honestly, they aren't even living in the same world.

That’s why it’s so easy to spot when someone is just average. They get caught up in questions like, "Who’s to blame for his marriage?" or "Did he choose this himself?" That's that narrow-mindedness at work—projecting your own limited intellect onto others through questions that are tied strictly to your own perceived interests. That's just how that level of thinking operates.

Take, for instance, a person with an IQ70. We’re talking about someone we might describe as slow, perhaps struggling with basic math and things like that. Just consider the sphere of thought available to such a person compared to an average person with an IQ of 100.

Now, imagine someone with an IQ of 150. It is a completely different cognitive system altogether. The sphere in which their brain operates is vastly larger; they process a much greater volume of information simultaneously. To them, the way an average person thinks—our way, if you will—is simply a minor, insignificant topic, even though for the average person, it revolves around their entire existence.

I have to disagree. Whether you’re looking at the scientists of today or those from centuries ago, they possess all the same flaws as anyone else. They aren't immune to greed, stealing intellectual property, or chasing power and money. If you take a moment to actually read through some biographies—of both the legends who have passed on and those still walking among us—you'll see that pattern clearly.

Your theory that they belong to some other world just doesn't hold water.

jadeheron5 said:I think it’s largely irrelevant... I suppose if someone wants to be considered a respected member of society, they ought to have had a wife, but that's not really the point. It’s about the spectrum of thought.

The average person mostly looks inward, focusing on themselves and anyone who directly impacts them. So, an average person is usually preoccupied with hierarchy, power, self-interest—figuring out who can help them reach their specific goals. But for someone with a much higher intellect, that way of thinking is incredibly narrow. Honestly, they aren't even living in the same world.

That’s why it’s so easy to spot when someone is just average. They get caught up in questions like, "Who’s to blame for his marriage?" or "Did he choose this himself?" That's that narrow-mindedness at work—projecting your own limited intellect onto others through questions that are tied strictly to your own perceived interests. That's just how that level of thinking operates.

Take, for instance, a person with an IQ70. We’re talking about someone we might describe as slow, perhaps struggling with basic math and things like that. Just consider the sphere of thought available to such a person compared to an average person with an IQ of 100.

Now, imagine someone with an IQ of 150. It is a completely different cognitive system altogether. The sphere in which their brain operates is vastly larger; they process a much greater volume of information simultaneously. To them, the way an average person thinks—our way, if you will—is simply a minor, insignificant topic, even though for the average person, it revolves around their entire existence.

How many individuals of varying IQ levels have you actually studied or looked into?

Even the most established researchers in psychology, neuroscience, or anything touching on cognitive function and IQ wouldn't dare make a claim like this. You simply don't see academics who have spent decades studying brain development or learning methodologies venturing into such territory. It’s outside the bounds of serious scientific discourse.

thinks that:
.

So, I suppose Socrates was just being a bit of an egoist; I'm not entirely sure how he ended up that way,

Back in his day, they had slaves to handle those kinds of matters.

Gerald Jackson48 said:@mravac

You’re better off sticking with Penrose ' The Road to Reality'. Capra gets way too caught up in all that mystical stuff.

I mean, sure, Penrose dives into some metaphysical obscurity himself, but at least he stays grounded in philosophy. Capra is more like New Jersey mysticism.

I'm currently working my way through *The Tao of Physics* and *The Dancing Wu Li Masters*, though I haven't quite finished either yet. In the beginning, *The Tao of Physics* traces the evolution of physics—moving from Newtonian mechanics toward Einsteinian quantum theory—while also illustrating how mechanistic physics influenced other fields, like biology, leading people to view biological organisms as mere mechanical machines.

So far, I haven't run into much mysticism, although I have noticed him referencing Buddha, Yin and Yang, and various Eastern perspectives on the world. That said, I don't expect any single book to perfectly align with my interests. As I've mentioned before, I find his take on consciousness to be somewhat underwhelming.

Given my current level of understanding, Capra might actually be exactly what I need right now. It’s entirely possible you've simply outgrown his work, which would explain why you prefer Penrose.

Rachel Richardson said:It would be more accurate to describe the electron as a wave-particle/particle-wave hybrid—something entirely distinct.
In field theory, an electron is merely an embodiment of that field within space; it lacks any internal structure.

The issue with these definitions is that modern physics is increasingly invoking the principle of non-locality—essentially suggesting that spacetime isn't a fundamental dimension, but rather something that emerges from a more foundational level of reality.

Current theories are leaning toward holography—the idea that all information is contained on an event horizon (or, to put it more simply, within the photon sphere surrounding an object).
A prime example of this is a black hole and its event horizon.

Another possibility is that gravity—and by extension, the entirety of spacetime—is a statistical quantity, much like temperature.
Temperature arises from local, random movements—the vibrations of molecules and other particles; it is an average value, dependent on entropy, which measures the disorder of a system.
Spacetime might similarly emerge from field fluctuations.

It is entirely possible that both analogies hold merit. 😁

What you've described sounds reasonable to me. The books I'm reading by Capra were published back in 1998 and 2004, so I imagine there have been significant breakthroughs since then. Regardless, I have to start from the basics and see how far I can get.

mistybison said:Since I promised to join the group read over at the "literature" ("book club"), I am currently working my way through "The Flatshare" by Beth O'Leary. It isn't exactly deep philosophy, but the humor is quite charming. 😁

I’ve spent nearly a decade reading nothing but *serious* books. I find myself feeling somewhat nostalgic for Ephraim Kishon; I think I really ought to carve out some time to read something a bit more lighthearted. "The Unlikely Marriage" seems like a wonderful choice.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Robert Goodwin: "A short introduction to philosophy"

It's just a quick rundown of philosophical history and 20th-century thought.

As for physics, I've moved on to:

Joanna Baker: "50 physics ideas you really need to know"

Just 50 straightforward essays covering everything from classical mechanics to relativity and quantum theory—no math equations to deal with. I also have a pretty interesting one by Albert Einstein: "The History of Physics," which tracks things from ancient tools all the way to quantum mechanics.

To my great disappointment, I can't tackle that kind of literature in English. However, Supek seems like a solid choice.

Though, if memory serves, one of Supek's books was actually quite disappointing—it felt like he was just recycling fundamental questions regarding the relationship between consciousness and matter without offering much original insight.

ruggedraven36 said:Charles Taylor - Sources of the Self (The Making of Modern Identity)

Going through this one for the second time—honestly, it hits even harder now than it did the first pass.

I looked up what I could find online about that book, and it covers a topic that I find personally fascinating. I think I'll give it a read; I see the local public library has a copy available.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Elisabeth Moon: Speed of Darkness

You caught me off guard there. I didn't realize you read fiction.

Harold Doyle3 said:Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

I find this passage from Capri regarding the electron much easier to wrap my head around than the whole Schrödinger's cat dilemma:

*These subatomic building blocks are highly abstract entities possessing a dual nature. Depending on our perspective, they manifest as particles at times and waves at others; light exhibits this same duality, appearing as either electromagnetic waves or discrete particles.

This dual nature of both matter and light is quite bizarre. At first glance, it seems impossible to accept that something can simultaneously be a particle—an entity confined to an incredibly tiny space—and a wave, which spreads out over a vast area. Yet, that was precisely what physicists were forced to confront. The situation felt hopelessly paradoxical until it was realized that the terms "particle" and "wave" are classical concepts that aren't quite suited for describing atomic phenomena. An electron isn't strictly a particle or a wave; rather, under certain circumstances, it behaves like one or the other. While acting as a particle, it can develop its wave-like characteristics at the expense of its particle-like traits, and vice versa, undergoing a constant transformation between the two. This implies that neither the electron nor any other atomic *body* possesses any intrinsic properties that exist independently of its environment.

Amanda Flores88 said:The other day, a volunteer from Catholic Charities reached out and mentioned how the disaster really forced people to realize what actually matters—focusing on people and solidarity.

And honestly? She's right. But when you look at what happened back in the Midwest, the reality is that those folks lost their homes and buildings—tangible, physical stuff that their entire lives depend on. People expect friends, both old and new, to step up and help them get back on their feet—meaning keeping their jobs and having a roof over their heads. A few kind words and some sympathy go a long way, sure, but sometimes love and caring for one another has to be very, very practical.

If you look at this from a different perspective, there’s a profound side to this story that often gets overlooked. Thousands of people, both here in America and from all over the world, stepped up and gave away everything they had—campers, food, clothing, blankets... even hard-earned cash—to help those who lost everything. They could have easily kept it all. It would have been so simple to just say, "I need this too," or to play it safe by thinking, "I might not need it today, but I might need it tomorrow." Instead, they chose to give.

bluemason3 said:Especially if they have a soft spot for pseudoscience... 😁

These aren't exactly scientific textbooks, nor are they physics manuals written for practicing physicists. They are philosophical works. That said, his philosophy isn't untethered; it’s firmly rooted in science—specifically, in the realm of physics.

I suppose I should probably say something more substantial than just "Walnut," but sometimes a single word captures the essence of a thought better than a rambling paragraph ever could. It’s a simple thing, really—just a nut. But there is a certain weight to it, isn't there? Much like how a single, quiet observation can occasionally carry more gravity than a loud, sweeping argument. Just a walnut. That's all. Sam Martinez9 says:
I haven't actually read it yet... but I'm putting it on my blacklist. I hit a bit of a snag when I got to that section about the opposite sex.
My partner looked at me and said, "Alright, enough with the theory—let's get to some practical application," right before shoving a vacuum cleaner into my hands.

Be grateful that the opposite sex was responsible for inventing both electricity and the vacuum cleaner.

Harold Doyle3 said:Haven't read it... putting it on my "do not read" list immediately. I hit a wall with the other gender.
(My version of the other gender told me enough theory for one day and handed me a vacuum cleaner instead.
Have you read "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose? It starts off heavy with numbers and math, talking about Turing's machine and all that, but it picks up later.
He argues that there's a "significant quantum component" present in consciousness. He has plenty of critics, of course... people will probably just shrug and say R. P. is a prime example of someone with massive potential who barely scratched the surface.

I gave it a read back in the day, but honestly, it didn't quite click for me at the time. I suspect I simply lacked the necessary context; some ideas require time to settle and actually sink in before they make sense. When I dive into Capra’s work on physics, I get this distinct impression that things *have* to work exactly that way—if you catch my drift.

*I actually just stumbled upon this insight from Capra regarding Penrose: "There are, however, other attempts—mostly by physicists and mathematicians—to explain consciousness as an inherent property of matter itself, rather than a phenomenon tied strictly to biological life. A standout example is the approach taken by mathematician and cosmologist Roger Penrose, who posits that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. Essentially, he argues that *we don't truly grasp consciousness because we lack a fundamental understanding of the physical world.*"

It’s interesting how Capra tackles the concept of consciousness here.

For those anti-physics types who aren't exactly eager to get their hands dirty with heavy equations but still want to grasp the essence of quantum mechanics and where the catch lies, I’d highly recommend Capra and the era of change. The book is worth the read for more than just the science; he bridges everything from Newtonian mechanics through quantum theory all the way to capitalism, touching on biology and social structures along the way. That said, since his background is in physics, he really shines when discussing the hard sciences—biology included. His take on the social sciences feels a bit less grounded.

I’ve been told that his book Tao physics is actually even better when you're diving into quantum territory, though I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy yet.

Posted from Slack
- Volver

Good morning, everyone.

What’s on your reading list this morning? I’ve been spending some time with Capra lately. As is the case with most readers, I find myself starting from the end. Here is a brief excerpt from the final pages:

* ........ moving from linear systems of resource depletion and the accumulation of products and waste toward cyclical flows of matter and energy; shifting from an obsession with objects and natural wealth toward a focus on services and human resources; transitioning from seeking happiness in material possessions to finding it in human connections. To borrow the words of David Suzuki:

Family, friends, community—these are the primary sources of profound satisfaction and love. We visit family members, maintain ties with our mentors, and share meaningful moments with friends. We undertake difficult challenges to help others, to save the frogs, and to protect the wilderness, and we find purpose in those efforts. Nature and service provide us with spiritual fulfillment. None of these joys deplete the Earth's resources, yet they leave us deeply replenished. They are complex and far closer to true happiness than simple pleasures like a Coca-Cola or a new minivan.*

mellowheron14 As specified by:
I am currently reading...Inequality philosophy — letters to enemies regarding social philosophyIt dates back to 1918—right in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution—and I find myself genuinely struck by how piercingly bold and relentlessly blunt this work remains, both then and now. It’s unapologetically politically incorrect. They say even he was caught off guard by just how sharp the tone of the composition turned out to be, though, in fairness, he never wavered from the core ideas he set forth.

To put it bluntly: the man is obsolete, which really shouldn't come as a surprise. We're looking at a span from 1918 through 2020—a full century. In those hundred years, human society has undergone such a radical transformation that it’s practically unrecognizable compared to where we started.

It is quite rare to find writers who possessed the foresight to truly grasp the shape and the inherent struggles of the society to come, and I don't believe Berdyaev belongs to that select group.

mellowheron14 As follows:

The hunger for equality will always stand as the most formidable threat to human liberty. When people demand absolute equality, they inevitably revolt against both fundamental human rights and the rights of God. Those of you clinging to liberal or socialist positivism simply fail to grasp the true tragedy of this dilemma. Freedom and equality are fundamentally irreconcilable. Freedom is, above all else, the right to be unequal.

True freedom can only exist within the framework of a free society—and by that, I mean a society where every single individual is granted their own autonomy. If you try to carve out pieces of liberty while leaving others bound, you haven't actually achieved freedom at all. You've just built a more sophisticated kind of prison.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Our whole civilization is heading right toward this—the next few decades are gonna be huge.
We just need massive amounts of clean energy and solid AI
Then we toss in transhumanism too. (Kind of like how they do it in Star Trek...all those implants that make life easier or give people extra abilities...I mean, the Borg are basically the extreme version of that)

Cheers to the future 👍

To those who lived 500 or even 1,000 years ago—we are nothing more than a utopian dream.

Carol Jackson2 said:Most people end up stuck in jobs that are either mind-numbing from day one or just get boring over time.

That’s why you need to constantly pivot and shift things up on your resume.

Criminals can always find work in the worst sectors; it’s a reality.

Some people actually gravitate toward mining, even though it’s incredibly dangerous.

Men do the laundry at home too.😉

So do surgeons.

Gerald Jackson48 said:That’s why I keep arguing that while technological progress handles the technical stuff, we also need spiritual growth. And in my opinion, neither of those is a small task. When I talk about spiritual growth, I mean becoming aware of and overcoming those primal psychological impulses humans have dealt with since the beginning of time—and doing it on a collective level. Then again, advancing technology isn't exactly simple either, as seen by things like the ‘calculation problem.’

It is entirely possible that spiritual progress cannot occur without material progress. You simply cannot have a human spirit without a human brain.

If we assume that spirit and matter are fundamentally one, then they must evolve in tandem.

bluemason3 said:The 'Labor Party' syndrome. I honestly can't decide if I'd rather listen to cultural studies professors and linguists lecture me on the economy and the tax code, or some dim-witted pop singers trying to explain immunology.😳

Well, that's democracy for you. Everyone has the right to vote, and everyone has the right to run for office. Of course, that often means people get to make decisions about things they don't understand and couldn't care less about—but hey, they have the electoral legitimacy to back it up.

Politicians are supposed to be our representatives. The real question is how much they actually represent us. How much do these union-backed politicians truly represent the working class?

Amanda Flores88 said:Look at you, getting paid well to shove a female-dominated job into something where you can't even argue with the money, though at least you can brag about the prestige.

And this whole idea that women stay away from blood, trash, and oil? Seriously? Women deal with filth, garbage, and pretty much every human secretion imaginable—not to mention seeing blood at least once a month... and let's not forget those stories about how guys start writing their wills just because they have a sore throat. 😁

A man cleans up sewage and gets a paycheck for it; a woman cleans up the mess at home and doesn't get a dime, nor even a simple thank you.

bluemason3 said:Sure, sanitation workers, sewage crews, and miners are all women too. Just because they enjoy complaining about it doesn't mean they aren't stuck doing the absolute worst jobs out there. ☕

Physical labor will probably shrink anyway thanks to automation, and since utopias don't exist, there's really no point in chasing them.

Communes fail because, by definition, they're just escapist clubs for naive idiots who can't adapt.

Though, they're still slightly less idiotic than those (former) socialists who thought they could just rotate tasks and split everything up equally among everyone.

Sanitation workers get paid for their labor; women playing at being garbage collectors just stay home and don't see a paycheck.

gentlerider7 said:The whole point is, you guys keep pivoting to which gender had it harder throughout history, but that’s not what this is about. And it’s not even really about which specific job is the absolute worst—that's totally up for debate anyway. The actual question here is how these kinds of roles should be distributed in an ideal society, and since we're talking about the concept of rotation, I want us to focus on how we actually apply that principle of rotation.

Fair enough, I respect that; I won't press the point further. However, I can't help but wonder: is it possible for a utopia to function only for a specific segment of the citizenry, while others remain oppressed? Perhaps they have everything they could ever desire, yet they are still burdened with the tasks that everyone else refuses to touch.

History often serves as a precursor to what our future might hold, and we have seen plenty of precedents. Take Ancient Greece, for instance; it was a democracy, albeit one that excluded women and enslaved people from its benefits.

Regarding the concept of rotation, I am skeptical that it offers a viable solution. Most roles—even the "dirty" ones—require a certain level of expertise. As we look ahead, it seems likely that jobs will increasingly demand specialized knowledge, while the manual, menial labor that requires only a basic education will steadily decline.

Consequently, we may face the exact opposite dilemma: a world where nearly every profession necessitates advanced degrees and constant lifelong learning. That sounds significantly more taxing than performing manual labor. In fact, simple, dirty jobs might actually become quite desirable by comparison.

I suspect robots will eventually take over the menial work, which leads us to a rather unsettling thought: what happens if those robots achieve consciousness and... decide they don't want to do the dirty work anymore?