Problems and their solutions

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

the problem, among other issues, is that the
anti-Liberal crowd complains, and complains
and then complains some more and yet, they
never seem to offer up any type of solutions…
The best they can do is say, ‘‘WOKE’’ is the problem
or liberals are the problems and yet, this solves nothing
because it isn’t a solution, a practical, concrete solution to
a specific problem…

So, let us try this…I will list out some, some,
of the problems facing us today, and let us see if some
solutions are available…

Income inequality…
lack of democracy in America and parts of the world…
the rise of technology that threaten to overwhelm us…
some hold that Transhumanism is a problem in the world…
overpopulation…
pollution…

These are a few of the myriad of problems that face us today…
and what are the solutions proposed by the anti-liberals, or
conservatives? Remove ‘‘WOKE’’ as if that were a problem,
or even an answer to any type of problem… or what else
does the anti-liberal crowd offer us in terms of solutions?
In some fashion, liberals are accused of ‘‘hating White culture’’
and yet, what problems does that ‘‘solution’’ solve?

conservatives/anti-liberals are not solving problems because
they are incapable of seeing the real problems through their
rose color glasses… for example, how does the Culture wars
of the last 40 years, driven entirely by the right, how does that
solve any of the above listed problems? the rise of harmful
technology… how does the ‘‘Culture Wars’’ solve that?
or how does the ‘‘Culture Wars’’ solve the problem of
income inequality that clearly plagues both the U.S
and to a lesser extent, Europe…

The ‘‘solutions’’ offered by the right/anti-liberals,
simply are not serious solutions to the many problems
of the world today… overpopulation… how does the
Culture Wars solve that particular problem?

Or to take a different tack, how do gay people, a common
enough attack by the right wing, how does that solve
any of the above listed issues? does removing gays solve
the lack of democracy in America or how does removing gays
solve the problem of pollution that threatens us…
or the lack of affordable housing in America? how does
attacking gay people or trans people solve the affordable
housing issue in America?

In fact, the only result of the conservative/anti-liberal crowd
Culture Wars issues is that they create more problems than they solve…
the real problem in America lies with those who spend more time
engaging in social/Culture issues than working on solutions to
actual problems…

They spend more time defending ‘‘White Culture’’ then
solving actual problems… a ‘‘White Culture’’ they can’t
even define! So, how does that solve the pollution issues
or the overpopulation problems or the income inequality problems
that threaten to create some real problems in America today…
or how does the alleged ‘‘White Culture’’ problem
solve the very real issue of America being a ‘‘corporatocracy’’
and no longer a democracy… so, how does attacking gays
or defending ‘‘White Culture’’ solve the problem of
America being a corporatocracy?

we cannot find any real solutions to our many diverse
problems if we don’t see what the problems really are…
or their possible solutions…

Kropotkin

1 Like
2

it doesnt. Gays trans debates are merely there to distract the workers and prevent the workers from uniting.

The right complains about gays and trans because they make them feel uncomfortable, but gay and trans issues have next to zero relevance on the economy at large.

Look at this way. 2 workers, one supports LGBT the other feels uncomfortable at LGBT. Now the 2 workers are no longer friends and no longer can unite.

1 Like
3

It is important to remember that it is a political coalition, so their motivations need not be internally consistent even if the motivations of each individual in the coalition are. For example, some coalition members may reject democracy as a goal, while others accept democracy but reason from a different set of premises to conclude that their coalition is the one fighting for it.

Culture war issues are how this works. People who like democracy can see ‘wokeness’ as undemocratic, imposed on them by elites. And it’s true that wokeness tends to favor the wealthy, the highly educated, and those from large diverse coastal cities, who have a developed stronger intuition for how to navigate it.

Or, they may favor democracy, but restrict the ‘demos’ to some subset of society, e.g. whites, multi-generation citizens, the wealthy or well-educated, etc.

So some coalition members favor democracy and think that liberal policies are anti-democratic.

Those who dislike democracy encourage this framing to attract coalition members. They recognize that a large number of people will prefer to believe narratives that align with their prejudices, and so they offer lies and rhetoric, and especially the social cover of elite approval, to support those narratives.

These coalition members either don’t care or actively dislike democracy, and are trying to solve the problem of maintaining a coalition capable of securing power.

1 Like
4

“Muh overpopulation!”

I can envision the liberal future solution now,

90% of men will become angry violent incels given free staples of state government pornography, couples will no longer have children where instead they’ll have dogs or cats between themselves, everybody else will just become flamboyantly homosexual fucking each other, and if you’re lucky to be wealthy there’s always sexual robotic women androids to look forward to in the distant future.

A type of social cultural utopia that only a liberal could dream up and imagine of.

:clown_face:

5

MrAuthoritarian:
I can envision the liberal future solution now,

90% of men will become angry violent incels given free staples of state government pornography, couples will no longer have children where instead they’ll have dogs or cats between themselves, everybody else will just become flamboyantly homosexual fucking each other, and if you’re lucky to be wealthy there’s always sexual robotic women androids to look forward to in the distant future.

A type of social cultural utopia that only a liberal could dream up and imagine of.

K: and as usual, you are just making shit up… name me a liberal
that has purpose what you suggest is the ''liberal utopia"
One liberal that has said such a thing… you can’t…
we don’t ‘‘dream’’ of utopia’s… we want change which is
usually of the small variety… for example, instead of
ending all violence, that would be a utopia, we simply
want people to think of peace before violence…
or be less violent in one’s actions and responses…
it is much like evolution… whereas the real trick to
evolution isn’t the big stuff, it is small stuff repeated
over and over again… improve the small stuff
and one will make a dent on the big stuff…
incremental change, one action a day…
not by huge actions but by a series of small changes…
that is the liberal way…

Kropotkin

2 Likes
6

If liberals were actually serious about overpopulation they wouldn’t support the biggest contributor to population growth which is millions of foreign immigrants every year who make up the largest bulk of reproduction rates inside western nations.

Same thing with A.I. ,if all jobs are going to be automated away there is no reason to have unlimited foreign immigration into western nations.

But of course, I’ve come to learn over the years to not take a majority of what liberals have to say on anything seriously at all. Your politics are like an irrational absurd circus carnival that makes me sick attending to.

Actually overpopulation is the least of our concerns considering the older generations of people will be doing a massive die off within the next thirty five years or less.

:clown_face:

7

MrAuthoritarian:
If liberals were actually serious about overpopulation they wouldn’t support the biggest contributor to population growth which is millions of foreign immigrants every year who make up the largest bulk of reproduction rates inside western nations.

K: Mr. A blindness is really quite apparent… note how he connects
an important issue like overpopulation with foreign immigrants coming
into America…in fact, overpopulation is a worldwide problem,
not just an American problem or a problem in the west…and not
just an immigration problem… we have possibilities about
overpopulation that doesn’t demand us to ban immigration to
the west or to America… but MR. A is so limited in
thinking he can’t get past of immigration as a solution
to overpopulation… because it isn’t any type of solution
to either immigration or to overpopulation…

Kropotkin

1 Like
8

I believe both Peter and Mr. A are correct.

Peter is correct in saying that overpopulation is indeed a world problem.

Mr. A is correct in saying that immigrants do seem to populate more.

I suggested a rational solution which is bring LGBT to the third world.

All this overpopulation makes competition fierce in a post-capitalist society. And plus it takes up wilderness area for example I drive dozens of miles and still there is city around me not even able to get to wilderness areas or hunting areas. Plus the overpopulation causes there to be yearly limits on when you can hunt and how many animals you can hunt which is Unnatural. Humans can be proven to be overpopulated because if you let humans hunt freely they would cause extinctions. Therefore you have to limit the amount of animals that humans can hunt freely and create cucked humans and artificiality.

image
image474×355 51 KB

When I look around me and see stroads all I see is overpopulation. And how many Native americans were murdered in order to pave the way for stroads and ugly overpopulated cities. And for future humans to be denied the right to hunt and be natural.

9

No it is just their biological and religious anti-LGBT instincts.

Before the “cancel-culture” culture these people were anti-LGBT and un-democratic. They had their own “cancel-culture” where any television show with lgbt was not allowed.

I believe the way to fix this is segregation. Right-wing channels where lgbt content is not allowed, left-wing channels where lgbt is allowed. And the television remotes are designed in such a way that there is a button to filter all channels of a type, so people don’t have to scroll through randomly distributed left-right channels sequentially.

I believe homophobia is a mental illness, idk if genetic or the result of bacteria or fungus. I view homophobes as these psychotic burly lumbering apes running around with hysteria. I will give an example of what I am talking about. There is a joke video called FPS-Doug where he acts insane. I am talking about this, except it is homophobes.

I myself don’t care for pozzed media and find the insertion of LGBT in the newer star trek mediums to be somewhat cringe. However, it doesn’t irritate me to the point of becoming a right-wing zealot about it.

10

Some right-wingers praise this competition as “natural selection” and Darwinism. But there’s a difference between competing between a few individuals (natural selection)… and competing with billions of people, biomutants, robots, agi, aliens, and billionairres, all while they are destroying the world environment and causing pollution, while also telling you what to do.

11

I agree that they were anti-LGBT, but I’m not sure about un-democratic. Democracy looks very different in a highly homogenous culture.

I see anti-LGBT sentiment rooted in religious anti-sex beliefs, which still exist but were much stronger and more pervasive in the early US. In these systems, the pleasure of sex is seen as sinful, then the only permissible sexual attraction is the duty to procreate. If expressions of sexuality of any kind are taboo, then expressions of sexuality that is necessarily non-procreative is especially so.

Democracy in a society where a large majority of the population feels this way is going to lead to pretty strong restrictions on personal sexual freedom and anything that would acknowledge the existence of sexual minorities.

In the US, the ‘heartland’ retained this culture much longer than the coasts, because they had a continuous influx of arrivals coming from different cultures. As the Federal government rose in power relative to state and local government, and as communication sped up, this led to an internal culture clash between liberals pushing for individual rights to self-determination, and conservatives resisting a world that doesn’t reflect values that are nearly-unanimous in their communities.

I don’t think this is possible, and I don’t think trying is wise. The fact is that the world is diverse, and people whose cultures depend on homogeneity are going to be disappointed. We should guide individuals towards acceptance of that fact, rather than helping them pretend otherwise.

This is another aspect of the culture clash I described above:

I don’t find it cringe because it reflects the world I live in. I have LGBT friends and family members, I have LGBT people in my community, so seeing LGBT people in media seems realistic.

But if you don’t interact with LGBT people in day-to-day life, then seeing them in movies and TV seems forced.

This is part of why I think the speed of communication is responsible for a lot of what’s happening. Life as reflected in media can change much faster than life in the real world.

I don’t think they’re both correct (I agree with Peter), but I think it does reveal an important difference in understanding of the problem.

MrA seems to understands overpopulation as a local/national and economic problem: crowded cities, competition for jobs/housing, etc.

But Peter is referring to overpopulation as a global and ecological problem: climate change, biosphere collapse, extinction, etc.

That’s important to notice in itself, because they each suggest that the other is not doing anything to solve ‘the problem’, but they’re talking about different problems.

And in particular here, where increased immigration may be a viable solution for the problem Peter’s referring to (since increasing wealth decreases reproductive rate), but, arguendo, exacerbates the problem MrA is referring to.

1 Like
12

Yes it is a result of Abrahamism. There are antiLGBT atheists too but it is because they are still recovering from Abrahamism.

The normal response to two males being sexual with each other is:

a. arousal, if the two males are attractive. :heart_eyes:

b. disgust, queasiness if the males are unnattractive.:nauseated_face:

And if b, then apathy, not caring and then going about the rest of your day. Only abrahamized homophobes get bothered by it

If you look at history, cultures weren’t antiLGBT until they were Abrahamized.

13

Correct they were democratic authoritarians, who did not believe in the First Amendment.

There may be some truth to that because I don’t live near the coastlands.

I still think I would find it cringe because of what it represents. Exclusive homosexuality in nature only exists in extremely domesticated sheep. Exclusive homosexuality signals that a society has been oppressively domesticated to that point. This creates an aversion response.

Usually when someone watches a movie, what they want is a free-for-all of natural values. What they are looking for is to reconnect with the wilds and nature, and escape from modernity and domestication.

I also noticed I have an aversion response to pornography in videogames. Even though I don’t want to ban pornography itself and enjoy pornography on occasion.

I don’t think this is possible, and I don’t think trying is wise. The fact is that the world is diverse, and people whose cultures depend on homogeneity are going to be disappointed. We should guide individuals towards acceptance of that fact, rather than helping them pretend otherwise.

Some forms of segregation would be trivial, such as separating TV channels into LGBT or non-LGBT categories on a television remote.

Other forms of segregation are too expensive, and we should not even bother with it. If a conservative is bothered by seeing a gay guy walking down the street, too bad I guess. What we should encourage is modesty, and style, if a gay guy dresses with class I don’t see any issue, but they shouldn’t dress as degenerate tramps.

That’s what bill gates believes but he might be swapping correlation and causation.

Wealthy nations tend to be proxy controlled by females, and that is what decreases reproduction. What I mean by proxy controlled, is that the nation are controlled by a small group of male elites that nudge female behavoirs to do what they want. Behavoirs include hypergamy and antinatalism.

14

Adding the buttons is not what makes this impossible. It’s classifying all media into “LGBT” or “not LGBT”: Biopic of Alan Turing? Interview with Peter Thiel? News about the Pulse Nightclub shooting? History of ancient Greece? Tom Holland drag performance?

Different people would draw the line differently about what happens to upset them.

Besides which, even if that were manageable, why this dichotomy? What about black/not-black, Muslim/not-Muslim, CCP-approved/not-CCP-approved?

A less pessimistic spin on this is that individual rights both increase wealth and decrease the reproductive rate.

Still, my understanding is that immigrants tend to resemble the society they move to more than the society they came from, and that’s even more true of their children. That would suggest that it’s causal, whatever the mechanism.

1 Like
15

@Carleas

The problem of the population reproductive rate in the west is multi faceted, it is because of economics, it’s because of female sexual psychology, and it’s because of cultural political ideology.

The fact of the matter is that if people had more children domestically or locally we would have no reason to import foreigners into our nations via global immigration. We would instead have all the people we would need domestically without adding more.

Radical feminism has been very antagonistic to such presuppositions and political liberalism had always been gun-ho for unlimited foreign immigration without reason or oversight.

Unlimited foreign immigration causes all kinds of racial or ethnic tensions along with economic problems. The capitalists know all of this but they go ahead with it anyways as a tool of bringing down wages further enriching themselves.

With the older generations getting ready for a massive die off population growth will become an issue at some point, unlimited foreign immigration is very damaging on the one hand, but the other route forces us to challenge radical feminism domestically along with creating better economic conditions for workers which there seems to be no political will to do so for either.

Then there is the technocrats with their dreams of technological transhumanism tyranny with an army of drone robots and A.I. This has become the whole nightmare of western civilization concerning a functional future of society. To call it depressing or bleak is an understatement.

Oh, I almost forgot, then there’s people like me who understand chaotic complex systems eventually collapse where basically collapse and political revolution more than likely is the future going forth because there’s no rational leadership anywhere to be found to fix much of anything.

:clown_face:

16

That is why you need 3 buttons: Leftist, normal human being, and Evangelical/Amish.

The Evangelical setting has no LGBT content of any kind. The Evangelical setting would include LGBT actors but only in movies where they play a heterosexual role. The Evangelical setting would include documentaries about gays but only if their gayness is not discussed extensively.

Normal human being setting, has some content, such as trans anime characters or gay background characters. For example it would have the old star treks where they had a lesbian in an alternate dimension. And it would have movies and TV shows that mention gay themes or jokes. If it would have aired in the 90s or early 2000s, it would be in the normal human being setting…

Leftist setting would feature pozzed woke media : Media that wouldn’t have aired in the 90s. Gay main characters, etc.

That’s a good setting and empathic to include. If people want to see black people content then they can simply click the button. If Muslims want Muslim-approved content they can click the button. Everybody wins and it reduces the net suffering of the universe.

1 Like
17

It doesn’t offer an explanation though. It just says that wealth is correlated with less reproduction, but shows no mechanism why.

On paper you would assume wealthy people would have more kids. Women are attracted to wealth. There is the meme of a rich man in a mansion who has a wife with 12 kids.

First you have to ask what is America’s wealth? Well its mostly billionaires and millionaires. Specifically, the top 10% of Americans own 70% of Americas wealth.

American millionaires and billionaires possess a significant share of the nation’s wealth. As of 2025, the top 1% of Americans—which includes almost all billionaires and most millionaires—own about $52 trillion, representing roughly 30% of all U.S. wealth. More broadly, the top 10% (almost entirely composed of millionaires and billionaires) control around $113 trillion, or nearly 70% of the total American wealth.

That means that 90% of Americas own only 30% of the wealth of America. Therefore 90% of Americans are low-status in the eyes of women. Therefore women don’t reproduce with them.

In the John C Calhoun rat utopia experiments, he could never achieve rat utopia. The reason is because rats crave status, but in a utopia everyone is equal. So even if the average American is rich compared to, say, the medieval ages, that’s not the metric women look for. They look for their wealth status compared to other people in the same time period and in the same nation.

1 Like