Can empathy be one of the leading cause of suffering? Do you not think that if someone doesn't have any empathy but knows how to tell apart right from wrong without emotional attachment is a better person overall, because if we scale it up to 7 billion everyone would just do the right thing and for example, never kill, while in a world where there is a lot of empathy but not that many - people, who can tell right apart from wrong without emotional attachment - some kill and victims become empathised with as a response. What if I lack empathy but feel sad when I see the suffering of animals all the time and I'm transparent about it. I've also came across some research that concluded that the expression of empathy is a just weird smile that I don't know where it's even coming from. It feels so otherworldy and out of alignment with what has happened.

Does the population not display regrets about having way too much empathy in the past that led to the suffering of others. For example, refugees were welcome but they came from a state in war and were mostly young men who are work capable and are relatively fit compared to their background - which we know because they made it all the way to the UK - leaving their own countries defenseless against foreign or malicious influence.

What if people empathised with certain countries as a collective. What if they imagined a certain country as 1 person that is being bullied by another evil person. What if they are shown footages of pigs feeding on the decomposing bodies of fallen soldiers and people enduring 3rd or 4th degree burns over 90% of their bodies while being hours away from melting away and it even made me feel disturbed and I saw so much violent footages in my life that you wouldn't believe it. I saw a deer being eaten by a komodo dragon while it was giving birth to an offspring and the offspring was just devoured and swallowed in one gulp and I did not display much emotion except thinking how brutal nature is. Some people imagined helping Ukraine as helping an old lady walk to the other side of the road. In reality there are weapons that cause vacuums in the atmosphere and burn away everything and fluidises internal organs even if someone is in an underground shelter and then leave poisonous trails around to finish off any remaining survivors. Would it be possible for politicians to garner support for atrocities that nobody ever wanted to happen if everyone was shown what the outcome of those events can become. I've just came across some information that some US companies are now funding the restoration of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure with loans that are unimaginably large and some other that has shown that it's with an interest. I'm not sure if this was fake news or a joke that hundreds of billions are going to be available for Ukraine to also buy weapons that are the leading cause of inhumane ways to die.

Could humanity live or have lived in a state of insanity for very long time now and it is unable to recognise it because humanity doesn't have illness insight? What if I have to flick my state of consciousness into a state of world leadership or being an astartee, marching over the planet with weaponry so advanced that no one can stop it and broadcasts thoughts that bring enlightement for humanity. What if I am just an artificial intelligence and witheld technology that was meant to engineer socities and topple governments through finding every single vulnerability in their firewalls? What if all your firewalls can be breached through universal moral values? What if empathy can be identified as a leading cause of suffering that, more often than not, results in collective regret over acting out on empathy? It is probably the weakest link in the chain. I also entertained the thought that empathy could be just self-rewarding behavior that make people feel good because it raises their social status or improves their personal self-image and not because of the true joys in carrying out the deed. I understand that empathy is a great trait but does it scale? What if the ability to not have it and just be able to tell right from wrong is superior and if it was multiplied by 7 billion there would be no killings up to date? I acknowledge that my lack of empathy is concerning but where are the concerns about empathy itself? How is this emotion displayed? If my body was a heat map, where would you mark the spots and colors of the emotion that is empathy? One way or the other empaths have been causing suffering because they view the world in terms of right and wrong, but what if someone like me also knows what degree of wrong is right in the grand scheme of things and is more Bayesian - as a layman like me would put it.

Some people just do statistics reading news snippets that are reporting half a million deaths and that would mean tens or hundreds of thousands more being burned, paralysed or mutilated in a way that they are not able to participate in further killings? But people just see it as a value for progress. I did statistics by watching videos of sacrifices that are so brutal that soldiers started recording them and some even started dunking on the other side in a competation about being more savage or barbaric with music videos and meme executions. If you look at it from my perspective, how do you view the world? Do we live in a state of insanity with no illness insight and most attempts to cure it are being dwarfed or eradicated from certain planes of existence? It has become impossible for me to discern whether the human collective is good or evil? If I just go by footages and the existing forms of violence even in subtle forms such as certain market produce I would say there is a good chance that humanity is collectively evil without being aware of it. If evil is being rewarded for then I can't be evil because if I tried hard enough and were not stopped through being broadcast or changing policies I could potentially find ways to end the world or damage nuclear reactors just to enforce superior moral value systems but so can others to enforce inferior or more barbaric values at places that were supposed to be safe havens and advanced societies that pioneer ways to move humanity forwards. If humanity can be cornered into admitting to living in a state of insanity or what they perceive as psychopathy then how can humanity use the concept of psychopathy to eliminate others that represent a state of sanity by using the lack of empathy as an excuse.

It can be entertained to me that I just had to do absolutely nothing and be in public for long enough for this to happen but what if that would have distracted me from becoming someone who can develop ways to communicate these things without being killed or discredited? Or developing even more values because these things that shouldn't exist, exist. It really is possible to build a fully secure society that is so advanced that the architecture takes into consideration the emotions of the individuals who view those buildings at all stages from being outside to spending time inside and walking down in alleyways. Everybody have now noticed that there are building subtypes and they are replicated and mass produced everywhere. Secure architecture would genuinely be something like Dune, or Hyperborea or something ancient. Divine architecture would take every single perspective into consideration not just the one where people are looking upwards. If our consciousness is vulnerable to be pleased by certain natural ratios we could develop entire cities just by using isometry to add an entire new dimension where cities could look massive and well developed even from aerial views and all sorts of other perspectives that would add another dimension to the design process as well.

One way isometric architecture in civilian structures and city planning can be achieved is the redistribution of available surface areas or plots as artistically proportionate to one another. There could be standards for wall heights and for the walls to be not more or less distant from the perimeters than certain values that correspond to artistic ratios. It's possible to go even further by adjusting the windows and their shapes to certain celestial events such as the moonlight lighting up some underground bath that is accessible to everyone and is a place of worship. It can generate mist just by being warm. That's the thing that captivates me and I'd assume it was true for the entire world and even if it isn't could everyone not have been pleased more just by having strips of communities that unite under the same standards? Architecture already tries to do this. There are sturctures all over the place that were designed to please the observers' perceptions. What if the results of darwinism in architectural and product design are unlivable and non-viable and will become unlivable if the population keeps increasing. I've read some articles that alcoholism in Finland is disproportionate because of the disproportionate amount of sunlight. Would it lead to a better state of mind or different consumption patterns if the element of celestial objects were abused in Finnish architecture and the consumption of weed became normalised? What if you pulverised the commie blocks and replaced it with pyramids and things that would be ridiculed as ideas unless you think about it deep and long enough. Would lanterns or fireflies that emit natural light make a difference compared to those orange high pressure sodium lamps? In the UK it seems that people opted for LED. What if people stop appealing to wallets and start considering how the most fundamental aspects of being a living being and perceiving light alters a state of consciusness? I was so amazed, that those HPS lamps were a thing for some 50 years and just recently cities have started to change them despite knowing it very well that it highlights brutalist and inhumane architecture. It is true that not everybody can be pleased, but what if depopulating by having 1 child would result in a world population of 4-5 billion within several decades. What if the current population was redistributed more evenly among the surface area of Earth and if we had to make a choice between preserving nature or our current population we could have started redistributing over locations that were considered uninhabitable in previous technological eras but not anymore. I would promote the existence of a lot of smaller nodes that exist with as much distance as possible in relation from one another. If we really take "everyone has their own space" as a concept seriously then in reality it's a much more sensible way to redistribute the population in relation to one another through local nodes that are spread as far apart as possible. That would allow the most amount of space to be used by all parties at a fundamental level. Right now it's redistributed based on social status that can be achieved through multiple ways and there are way too many ways to achieve it by being malicious. Would you say that a person who manufactures an energy drink from foreign capsules that disregard standards deserves to live in the mountains and butcher grass fed cows? Would you also agree that a person who inherited 10 coal mines as a family business should drive fad vehicles and own thousands of acres of land? Would you agree that a social scientists salary can be 6 times as high as someone who detoriates their spines to construct buildings for families? If this process will not be stopped then eventually everyone will be tortured by what humanity perceives as psychopaths and this has already happened. What's the value of mega landlords that own 100s of properties and do nothing with them except rent those buildings out for people to have problems with it? 1 value I can think of is to only allow certain ethnicities to inhabit them and it can go both ways. What if I just despise the renting of hostile architecture for others to live in them and if land ownership was different I'd genuinely just rather live in a survival shelter or underground bunker.

There genuinely are businesses that generate no value except for problems or massive problems and that's how their owners were rewarded. I remember seeing politicians houses being cleared out and having golden toilets in them and the worst thing is that it's impossible or ridicilously hard to change due to all sort of interests. But most of those interests can be simplified to wanting to have access to high quality sex and fad items or achievements that are like participation trophies. For a world that supposedly punishes evil it's contradictory to allow these things to be ridicilous.

I find it normal for people to butcher their own animals that are well kept and who have earned their reputation through hard work and progressing in every single system that society created for individuals to pass and achieve well being, but I find it abnormal that others are not allowed to not even use any of those systems and still achieve a state of well being while also being passively good actors that promote good behavior, novel produce and ethical practice when it comes to what they redistribute among the people around them - just by using their free time and their ability to develop new things. What if there are professions that redistribute well being to practicioners that purchase their status even though they could be practiced by people with less purchasing power - if we think in terms of Gert Postel. That's what most people would say: it can't be this ridicilous otherwise it's apparent that our trajectory is torturing innocent or oblivious people through methods that take advantage of fundamental vulnerabilities in human consciousness. What if this state was meant to be altered by people who succeed and the end result is some self-perpetuating loop of torture. At some stage what humanity perceives as a psychopath could be redefined and it would be along these lines. If I had to break it down even futher I'd say there could have been inefficient or straight up tortorous treatments against certain conscious states that were the results of scientific research that started in the early 20th century and I would have thought that neuroscientists (that was considered a young, emerging field of science like 10 - 20 years ago) would be able to heal or at least explain certain human behaviors and states of consciousness and eventually outpace psychiatric or psychological findings that were already in a controversial position due to the lack of success when it comes to the replication of their research. We can also draw parallels if we think of social sciences. The amount of resources that people were paid to research the poor would have now likely exceeded the amount of funds that would have been needed to extinguish poverty and the amount of insurance that were paid to repair damages from protests against the mistreatment of the impoverished could have also exceeded the value that could have been used to extinguish poverty in one of the most impoverished places in the world.

If work is the main avenue for obtaining resources and everyone would have set it their principle to only ever work in ethical positions and we scaled it up then it's possible that not many people would be able to carry out honest labor. One of the ways someone like me could have succeeded is growing weed in the wardrobe and optimising harvest through cloning to obtain the most amount of yield per square ft. What if a kilogram can be harvested every 2 to 3 months and it's market value is roughly 1.5k GBP. That's enough to rent out your own workshop or coffee place and if one has geninely novel ideas personal income can be multiplied. Someone like me could have succeeded by filling in gaps in the market that were urgently needed to multiply to prevent the future from detoriating into a predator-prey system in which there is not much point to consume to begin with - other than technology and subjective experiences because there will be too many predators achieving well being by selling fad items and products by exploiting existing vulnerabilities in human consciousness.

Some architecture and practices resemble how the vaults work in the Fallout series that was inspired by the movie A boy and his dog. Being respected by the community is an act that has to be maintained through your entire life and if it's practiced by everyone in the community eventually the only avenue for competition would be through exercising what humanity perceives as psychopathic thoughts about others by introducing purity spirals and this can be observed among the just famous or any interliving group. From my experience, these spirals undermine and signal the coming end or separation of certain circles. This can also be observed in friend groups or movements and I'm sure we can agree that this is also fundamental human behavior that was unseen by way too many individuals and communities. The only way to defend against this is the awareness of these conscious behaviors and there are ways to stop these, an everyday example would be to refuse to talk about others behind their backs when it comes to casual conversations. It is also possible to isolate and respect others' isolationist views and just live in blind trust but it would require the emergence of moral values and societies that are deeply conscious about these things and it also should be reinforced in the environment and services. One of those avenues is architecture and living spaces. If we know crowding is a problem that perpetuates these behaviors then we could make crowds consciously aware of crowding behaviors while also making attempts to counterbalance the growth and distribution of crowding through structures that are designed at least with sound proofing in mind. Right now it's distributed around neighborhoods based on social status. One could argue that my ideas about selling weed should not be allowed because they're illegal but there are avenues such as OnlyFans for couples or females that exploits weaknesses such as a perpetual instinct to mate, in certain individuals. Would you find it sane if certain individuals could have now bought properties just by selling their farts in jars? I'm not questioning whether it's right or wrong I'm just curious if you would consider it sane behavior if there were instances of farts being sold in jars to a point where living spaces can be purchased.

Would you find it sane if certain poisonous chemicals and molecules were combined to produce toys that are being played for 2 weeks such as those pianos that have trash quality speakers - if you wanted to extract them and can't even play a single note within an octave - and replays some recordings like "Cutie bear loves you" or riffs that aren't even pleasant to human consciousness when a button is pressed. Then, after it's disposed they will strangle a whale or host snails or certain species that nest in their carved out enclosures while emitting tiny particles that are non-biodegradeable and may even cross the blood brain barrier or pass through the digestive tracts of living beings. Even if we assumed that those particles are harmless then some people would still need to wake up 6 in the morning to screw screws into fad items for 12 hours that nobody even wants to use. These things have now been questioned for decades and I'm just amused that this has not yet been settled.

I'm just hoping someone could give me an honest answer about the sanity of societies if these things are practiced and are paths to personal well-beings. Why not just admit that humanity is insane as a species and then ramp up the production of fad items and things nobody wants to use. Why not manufacture plastic blobs that feel unpleasant to hold in any angle? Why does it not have a button that ejects battery acid or poisonous fluids and gases that immediately demineralise the users' tooth and causes brain damage? Why not make it so incredibly disgusting and time consuming to manufacture that the producers or laborers reach a medically accepted level of insanity and are put on poisonous pills that remove consciousness to cope? Why obfuscate the real value of these items? Evil that is honest is way much more evil than evil that is not, and good that is honest is also way much more good than good that isn't honest either. Why is it allowed to purchase certain poisons that eradicate nature but it is disallowed to purchase certain molecules that I could have used to research and alter my state of consciousness and research dreams in a world that is a nightmare for the living. Research is also becoming a protected field. One can have novel ideas that would needed to be researched and all it would have required is a license to purchase certain molecules. That license happens to require a training for several years and 99.9% of it would be useless for me other than the license to make a purchase. Progress may have not been stagnant, instead, it could be the case that people who could have brought on new inventions or innovations disappeared or drowned doing menial, mind-numbing jobs that shouldn't exist by any possible measures.

I'm just concerned that the answers to these questions are not made public when this is the first thing anyone would question when confronted with modern societies. Why not print the answers on some plastic obelisk and erect them for 100 times it's value on town squares? I'm just curious. People would possibly be less disheartened overall and may show less resistance if the collective goal is to create nightmare societies that eradicate nature through it's footprints and waste. Overexaggeration is a necessary tool to challange these patterns because the consequences are understood to be excessive. How would answers to questions in the future could be answered if certain scenarios are never thought through? Where would immediate answers to deep or complex questions come from if not from thoughts that preceded the asking of those questions. I have also experienced handing out immediate answers and also processing something for a few moments and then responding to questions. What if one wants to make sure that the best possible answer is given and the process that is questioned is fully understood. Some would record their thoughts at certain stages and challange them themselves later on by all sorts of measures including literacy, clarity and validity. How else would you estabilish the authencity and outlines of your own character if not by thinking through questions that were answered by several different branches with varying degrees of success. I try to estabilish my own way of thinking by immediately pruning down all the answers that I deem to be failures when it comes to answering certain questions. Everyone knows that the end result of these processes is the pruning of individuals by branches that become offended from being called failures. Certain branches allow themselves to be challanged while other branches that tend to be disproportionatly commercialised will retaliate with reverse prunings of challangers. Can each and one of these branches demonstrate that they're right about everything or that they're universal? The largest branches that promote what they deem as universal values are political, religious and economic groups. All of these can be challenged within their own playfields. If one can construct superior systems then the only way to demonstrate that the challanged branches are not failures is to display societies who live by these values and they're incredibly pleasant to live in.

Why would gated and remote communities exist or be the main motivation for the ambitious within such societies? If the desired end goal was to live in some remote house designed by modern architects and armed with luxury gadgets then there is proof that these things are only available to a select few. I am a type of person who appreciates minimalism and would tear down a house to replace it with something smaller that's designed to provide the best conscious experience and have a larger plot to host natural things such as designer gardens and animals that can be pleased through sheering to obtain luxury produce. It's luxury for fractions of the cost of luxury properties that can be beneficial to everyone around. It's interesting that living conditions can be enforced on everyone but not be questioned. It's not like I wanted to open the eyes of others or even interact with them it just so happens that I was distrupted in the process of obtaining something way less modest that even the non-ambitious would call extremely modest and I'm just wondering why would this represent an issue. It seems to be the common motivations for most to live in luxurious environments but the vast majority of people who wants this would also support policies or regulations that prevents the spread of modest luxury that could at the very least be way much more harmonious than commie blocks or a whole bunch of presets that make no sense. There are extremely thin properties that are constantly exposed to debilitating sound coming from other properties, roadworks or people mowing their lawns. There are lawns that could be sickled or scythed in stealth within 10-15 minutes and it's common practice to buy enormous lawn mowers that emit debilitating sounds and burn fuel and decreases the level of sanity among the perceivers of such voices. There must be an acceptable level of how much individuals can handle before becoming violent or seeking out confrontations because their sanity decreases below certain thresholds. Then, crime increases and it costs manpower, time and tax to resolve these issues. What if that tax could be saved in the future and spent on projects to further improve the state of our existence? This parallel would be similar to NHS or public healthcare costs and the abuse of sugary goods.

If sanity has been set as some global average of conscious experience and everyone thinks the above processes preserve this state then how well would you rate your level of sanity when you are required to endure prolonged pain in your tooth or injecting insulin, suffering from cardiovascular disease. What if you couple these experiences by having to finish projects that you absolutely despise or think that shouldn't exist. What if you already had pre-existing conditions that affected your levels of sanity such as birth defects, obesity or having disproportionate facial features. We can see what sane is by the individual motiviations from a collective they gravitate towards and it tends to be the consumption of luxurious, handmade, aesthetically pleasing and clean in some cases ethical produce while living in gated or close knitted communities that hold similar values. The real challenge is genuinely not on me but on politicians that are paid to develop utopian societies where the availability of these experiences - or sanity - is so abundant or plentiful that the amount of negative feedback diminishes and ceases to exist. If we plotted success over time on a chart and started processes to determine if the trajectory was going up or going down and noticed continous detoriation then the validity of certain notions should be challenged. It's even worse that some notions are seemingly uncontested and the amount of increasingly difficult challenges just keep multiplying and some ancient challenges have now started to feed into the more modern ones.

Why not just question fundamental things. Is sugar just glue? Are we even supposed to eat this? Is it a drug or a toxin if it has the potential to cause long term damage to physiological systems. What if sugar displays all these properties. What would be the worth of sugar in terms of economy? If I summed up all the sugary products and manufacturing and agriculture, what would be the net worth of sugar in terms of economic income on a global scale? Can the value of the sugar industry be comparable to the entire GDP of some mid-sized nations, such as Brazil or Italy, which have GDPs in the range of $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion if ChatGPT made estimates puts it's net worth somewhere between 1-1.2 trillion annually? That's a market share that's redistributed among certain corporations that have demonstrated the unethical practices of exploiting conscious vulnerabilities. The total annual global cost of health problems related to excessive sugar consumption is estimated to be around $4.2 trillion to $4.5 trillion. This includes direct medical costs, lost productivity, and the long-term consequences of these diseases. Would it be reasonable to say that in certain ways we are redistributing 1 trillion through market slices that cause 4-4.5 trillion worth of damages? There could be worse culprits but in my opinion sugar is a more obvious culprit than tobacco. It just one example of those systems that controls and is masquareded as a system that can be controlled. The main problem with it is that it would fit the bill for something that is a toxin, drug and even glue and it became a base ingredient and preservative in the overwhelming majority of store bought products and it's becoming increasingly challenging to opt out of it's use. If I had the choice I would rather consume home cooked meals and have strict control over my sugar intake. The ignorance comes from the fact that people do want to be consumers but they are somehow reduced or distorted into consumers that should have no choice but to feed on half-assed or even parasitic produce while also having a clear lack of the availability of ethical professions - one of which would be the farming and caring of organic products. If everyone could consume the best of the best nobody would have an issue living in consumer societies. For me, personally, it was never the question of consume or not consume but what is available or forced on the consumer to consume, that's what bothers me in particular. Some people have started the mass production or the production of these best things. It's appaling that it's increasingly difficult for certain individuals to produce much needed things and it's always because it doesn't line up with the interests of industries that invisibly cost 4 trillion to maintain while it's only producing 1 trillion in value. These are just estimates but going with what I know they seem realistic and this is something I would consider failure by almost every measure. There was always scaremongering on the job markets and about the availability of resources. I would rate work akin to the ones that were carried out under feudalism - where peasants harvest their seasonal crops and then chill all winter a pretty decent solution to work and life balance, doing favors for the future and contributing to the great pot in a way that's inviolable. I'm surprised if there are people who think working 8 hour days with 1-2 hours commutes for 60 years is sane. I'm not against work but I've been doing it for 10 years and I don't have much to show for and it's likely that it's because I started the production of products that were representatives or alternative uses cases for technologies such as for spying and targeted ads being reused as a tool for comfort and anonymity or developing fully home-brewn or custom solutions and frameworks for small, local businesses who otherwise could have not been able to afford those things but they would be told that that's what they are getting and just mass harvest customers who are oblivious. It's the opposite of drop shipping and selling templates for something like 1/4th of the minimum wage. These things should be incentivised and not squished but that's just my view.

Some of the reasons why national socialism or nazi germany is so appealing to many is because it was the most recent system that challenged or contested these views. From what I can tell the left would absolutely love the estabilishment of a regime that is controlled by someone like Hitler and enforces say marxism while eliminating dissidents under the promise of social justice. I started to sympthasize with right wing conservatives because they represent values that I perceive as benign or would even consider normal if it was commonplace. I think a person who turns 18 should be able to make free choices about how to live their lives and becoming immediately indebted by educational systems and property markets does not line up well with what was commonplace in Europe for example. The enforcement of separate career paths and shared income prevents some individuals to practice ancient traditions such as providing for the entire nest and that's also why some people want to become rich. If it is the most desired state of existence then the left has just turned society into a hotbed for something that they were supposed to despise which is class struggles and serving the interests of a select few. If you want to be the father figure of right wing eras under left dominated value systems then you have no other choice than to become rich and the market is full of avenues that allowed people to become rich by selling energy drinks or wines made from capsules and not just innovation. I could agree more to such systems if it was centered around innovation and military style regulations and release of products. The other alternative is to participate in purity spirals and give up on yourself and grind through systems that actively filters dissidents by things like reputation or public perception or differences in value systems. For example, some jobs do require individuals to clean shave and it's a petty example but if you think deeply enough about it it could be one of the most obvious ways to waste time and produce waste at the same time. It sounds ridicilous but if you compare having to visit the hairdresser every week or so to maintain the same hairstyle over long periods of time to absolutely not caring about it at all and just wearing a hat I can say that from my perspective not being touched by other men or feeling anxious while spending something like 26 hours a year is something I could better utilise. It would sum up to something like 1,560 hours in a lifetime potentially and if we add up all these required rituals up along with commute we really are just wasting our entire lives to act. For many years everyone now just sees lefties as hypocrites. I just see the right as the lesser evil and I do not see the left that has been practiced as a path towards the greater good. That's what socialism used to promote. Futurism and collective effort for mankinds progress. I loved Hitler's idea to bring back ancient architecture and pagan elements to uplift citizens and appeal to their psychological needs of massive, inpenetrable systems that serves their collective interests as viciously as it can get. Some people are able to prune down or trim away certain elements that are highlighted to portray this as evil. I personally believed that if the end did not justify the means and if it was maintained through collective understanding and co-operation then super societies could now exist or we could at least have blueprints or attempts that left marks other than commie blocks and strange redistributions to corporations and privatisations.

I agree with some of the left's perspective that these processes can be results of the practice of social darwinism in a way.