Ask Lemmy

Outside. They don't have all characteristics necessary for the definition of "life" (they can't reproduce themselves), so they aren't classified as life-forms.

Probably as a stripped down bacteria.

because people in those states can act unpredictably and are thus unreliable. you don't want your surgeon to be tripping balls.

In my opinion it’s because in the past human beings needed to be constantly working or assisting with a group in some capacity in order to ensure mutual survival for the group. Let’s say a village.

Activity which is not seen as being productive or could be construed as lazy has a stigma around it because it casts doubt on your ability to contribute to society.

Obviously none of this applies in the same way these days but there is a kind of primal conflation of intoxicants and laziness. Laziness is bad and so consuming intoxicants turns into a moral issue.

These attitudes are very deeply ingrained and although they can shift a bit as people become more liberal the deep suspicion remains.

I think the mindset of a society is hard to change. We do see some progress towards the use of psychedelics for mental treatments which I think is great(at least in my area of the world). Is it enough ? Not to my taste but it's progress. I can't wait for people to have access to that kind of help!

I'm still using mushrooms from time to time to deal with personal issues, trying to find a different perspective on my own, it has helped me numerous times. I think it also helped me reduce my overall stress and prejudice.

I would suggest you also try to find different perspectives on how people got different opinions on the subject. I really don't think being aggressive towards them the way you have been helps anybody. If anything, your opinion/facts are discarded quicker because you dont appear as a respectable source of information. You appear too emotionally connected to the subject. Especially to people who may be scared or closed to those different ideas.

the topics seem good. but posting to two coms is kinda spammy. as opposed to asking in one, then collect answers before asking for further additional responses in another.

Nate Hagens talking with Daniel Schmachtenberger.

Youtube it.

I disagree that economic growth is a prerequisite for political freedom. I think that type of thinking has been perpetuated by capitalists to keep capital flowing. Communes and mutual aid don't have great or any economic growth but can allow for political freedoms that we don't even have now.

Die

Sustainable growth is popular but we are going to need to invest in unpalatable energy sources like nuclear power in order to power it. We also need to make sure recycling actually happens as opposed to local authorities shipping the materials overseas for “processing” (i.e. being dumped or burned).

Human populations tend to decline as an economy becomes more advanced and people are able to plan their families. We are already seeing population growth stagnating much more quickly than expected in countries like China. That will cause demographic challenges so we are going to need to rethink how we manage immigration so it can happen sustainably with public consent.

Lastly, increasing economic output doesn’t necessarily mean consuming more resources. If a country becomes more productive, by for example integrating a new technology, then you can increase output with the same or fewer resources.

On the surface of the body, you're moving, so you experience time dilation. Physically this is no different than orbiting The body. The clocks built into GPS satellites need to be constantly adjusted for this reason.

But the question how it works when the surface of a body rotates at relativistic speeds while the core is not moving breaks my brain.

I think it would not have a shape, or would rather be a zero dimensional point. For it to be any shape, it would have to have features, but you've already defined this as the fundamentally smallest 'thing' so it can't have any features smaller than itself. But you could also probably convince me that it's a sphere. I'm not sure if mathematicians consider a sphere of infinitesimal radius to still be a sphere or not, but treating it as infinitesimal kinda makes sense to me even if it's actually finitely small (the Planck length?)

A more interesting question to me is, assuming positions in space are discrete, which I'm not sure follows from saying there's a smallest possible object, how are those 'voxels' arranged? I don't think that's necessarily equivalent to asking what the shape of the smallest object would be. Pixels on a screen are in a rectangular grid, but the actual elements are circles in some types of screens.

There are a number of shapes besides cubes that can fill 3D space, but do the voxels even have to all be the same shape? Are we even looking for a 3D tiling, or could it be 4D in spacetime, or even higher dimension if it turns out the universe has more than 4 dimensions? Does it have to tile at all, or could it be entirely irregular while still being discrete? Is there any conceivable experiment that could prove any of these things, or is it unknowable?

A string