Cat_Has_My_Pipe
I've been getting really into 'hell'. Both as a mindset and as something to strive for.
No bio...
User ID: 2027
I've been reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars. Tracking the efforts of 100 scientists sent on a mission to set up a Mars colony, it's exactly the kind of sci-fi I love - very grounded, full of technical explanations, philosophical arguments, speculations on the psychology of this unique situation, and political intrigue. I don't have the scientific background to know how much of it is accurate (Would hydrazine engines be the preferred option for Martian tractors? Can we really bioengineer microorganisms to such an extent? Surely the extremely fine Martian dust would be an immediate health problem and not just something you can shrug off as "yeah this will probably kill us in a few decades but that's Mars for ya"?) but it all sounds good enough to my layman brain. Highly recommended to anyone with an interest in Mars or hard sci-fi.
Also, I would like recommendations anyone has for a good book on the Franco-Prussian War.
Weed may cause people to go schizo, there are rumors of coming out of California of extremely potent new strains of weed causing something like schizophrenia in heavy users.
This is kind of what I was getting at with the last paragraph. Sentiments like this from the OP;
But it is [harmless]. It doesn't cause significant bodily harm, and it doesn't compel, doesn't build anything like the crude physiological dependency loop of opiates. It only makes one a bit different, for a few hours.
I think are largely cultivated from the days of significantly more mild marijuana that was smoked in joint form. It is now a brave new world of concentrates and high potency stuff, and the cultural conceptions of weed haven't really caught up from what I can tell. Perhaps it is the case that this entire conversation needs to be reframed.
What's nebulous and philosophical about it?
It comes down to your own personal value judgements. I agree with your position, but there are others who think this kind of life is perfectly fine and legitimate. I've met a handful of people who would see no problem at all with this lifestyle.
In the sense of 'the state sends guys with guns to shut down his weed dealer', or the sense of 'his friends try to convince him to stop being worthless'? Certainly the latter.
I meant the former, although perhaps less extreme. His friends have already tried to convince him, and it didn't work. Personally, the answer to "is it okay to let people degenerate, so long as every step is taken out of their own will?" in this case is...maybe? Depending on how you're defining "let" and what you've already done. If intervention from friends doesn't work, what's left?
As you noted, a marijuana addiction is far less insidious than many other choices. A town of potheads faces far less severe problems than a town of heroin addicts. Your friend has a job, and while he may only use that job as a means of acquiring more weed and food, he is still a productive member of society - and his weight will cause pressing issues for both himself and society far sooner than the weed will.
Sure, The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come could have probably swayed your friend 10 years ago with visions of his present self, but he's ultimately not really hurting anyone other than himself right now. And "hurting himself" in a kind of nebulous, philosophical way.
I think liberals underrate the importance of the collective, but I really can't get over my innate libertarian streak here. I would wager that your friend has about as much capacity for free will with regards to weed intake as any other addict does (very little). But does it really warrant more heavy-handed intervention? Weed is a plant and mild narcotic, a weed addict is positively harmless in the grand scheme of things. For me, any government or societal measure against something has to overcome my inherent aversion to such a thing. Who the fuck are you, Mr. Legislator/Pressure Group, to tell me what I can and can't do? I didn't vote for you, it is not my neighbor's business what I'm doing in my home if it doesn't harm them, so on and so forth, you get the picture.
So heroin? Sure. My neighbor being a heroin addict is probably going to concern me at some point. As with any drug that hijacks its users minds and causes them to steal and harm to feed their habit. Weed's not that kind of drug though, so I really can't bring myself to support action against it, even if it can hollow someone out. And this is from someone who had a close friend go down that very same path your friend did.
With all that said, I think there's an important facet to this particular topic that's missing. Your friend is doing wax and dabs and talks about potency. The hits your friend regularly takes would probably knock a hippie from the 70s on their ass. Still (probably) ultimately harmless, but I think the common ideas and thought processes about weed and its use hasn't really caught up with the sheer strength of the stuff today.
until someone takes up the mantle of JFK and tries to break the NSA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds, our reaction will continue to be feckless
If I am reading this correctly, you think there needs to be a martyr president who catches a bullet from the feds to galvanize the people? Because frankly I don't think even that would result in much. Best case scenario is it riles up a group of people, but the whole thing gets spun into a culture war issue. But to begin with I seriously doubt anyone who would earnestly attempt to defang/disband the NSA would ever make it to being president. Bernie is probably the closest.
Chimps and gorillas possess a large amount of muscle. Just look up "hairless chimp" - they're positively ripped. This is despite (as far as I know) a low protein diet and not engaging in large amounts of resistance training. I have a vague notion this is partially due to myostatin, although I'm sure there are other factors. My questions, will CRISPR eventually be able to make us as naturally ripped as chimps, will it be legal/accepted, and if it does become legal/accepted - how strong will the elitist culture be (I actually worked for these gains, you're just a filthy gene-modder)?
- Prev
- Next
For puzzle games, probably Zachtronics games if you don't have a background in programming/engineering. I guess a lot of 90s adventure games may count, insofar as they have hidden "puzzles" that are basically impossible to reason your way through and will softlock your progress if you don't get them right.
For strategy, an operational level game like Command Ops 2, which sees you as a commander in a number of WW2 battles. It has a ton of variables and simulation, of course (forests increase the indirect damage from artillery because the splinters from exploding trees act as extra shrapnel), but the main thrust of the game is that it's an actual strategy game. Instead of microing your little dudes on the map, you give orders to NATO icons on a top-down map representing companies. Your orders take time to reach your companies, and then take a little extra time to trickle down to everyone in the company, and then it takes a little bit of extra time for your companies to reorganize and gear up for the order. It's real-time and you're grappling with imperfect information and the simulated clunkiness of giving orders in war, so the game is basically one big exercise in the OODA Loop
More options
Context Copy link