If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for “beta uprising” until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.
Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.
So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people’s energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? “prepare” as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseus™ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.
What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant
What a stretch! The last time I saw this line of reasoning was from actual holocaust deniers. Did you know that the population of humans has rapidly increased over time?
pigeonholing me with holocaust deniers is a hamfisted ad hominem.
Nothing about you. Just the argument! It’s quite plainly stupid, you see.
this is an appeal to ridicule, not a refutation.
I already refuted it, but you never addressed that aside from the non-sequitur “What’s your excuse?”
you have not refuted it at all, and I don’t have an excuse: I have facts.
I didn’t ask you for an excuse. I refuted your claim with facts.
whatever your excuse, being vegan hasn’t helped.
Excuse?
you said it helps. i pointed out the proof that it hasn’t decreased meat production at all. you made an excuse for why your tactic isn’t working.
I see! Maybe you’ve never before encountered the concept of opportunity cost before. It’s something like this: if I don’t murder someone on a given day, I’m not actually decreasing the total number of real murders on that day. But contrasted against the hypothetical day where I made the inverse decision, it does. Does that help?
so being vegan doesn’t actually help. which is what I said.
Which part remains unclear? Is it the use of a hypothetical? Specifically, this hypothetical asks you to imagine a world with no vegans. Do you think that, in such a world, there would be more animals killed for consumption or fewer animals killed for consumption, compared with reality?
I have no reason to believe the industry could produce any more than it does, and so no reason to believe it would.
Exactly! In a world with more vegans, fewer animals are killed. Hence, vegans help.