Are Nukes “Needed” In A Stateless Society?

This is a transcript of a discussion from my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

Coronapossum
How would militias and national defense work in a stateless society? As someone who serves in the navy, I am curious who would manage things like battleships, submarines, and aircraft carries, if there isn’t a national military.

I love what I do in the navy. I just wish there was a way I could continue to do it without being paid with stolen money. Like if the state disappeared the private militias could have a maritime division or something like that.

ⒶMP3083
If Joe wants a military in a stateless society, I say to him, “Then you pay for it. Just don’t make me pay for it.”

bbblackwell > Coronapossum
Whatever good you’re perceiving in your work will always be available in some form. The universe is made of Love, and both the subject and object of Love eternally exist, and are one.

On a less esoteric note, I really like to eat scrambled eggs. I don’t eat eggs anymore. However, I have a tofu-scramble recipe that I enjoy just as much as I used to enjoy eggs. The thing I liked is gone, but the experience of liking remains, utterly whole, untarnished, and in the same particular niche.

What is it that you do there?

Coronapossum > bbblackwell
I’m a nuclear technician. I work aboard submarines to maintain the reactor.

bbblackwell > Coronapossum
Well, that just sounds awful, but to each his own, as they say!

I understand the satisfaction of technical work, and enjoying a particular work environment. I’m very happy for you, and I can imagine essentially similar (if not ostensibly similar) endeavors to pursue in an ideal world circumstance.

Abdul
In a truly stateless society, it would be drastically different, so imo a “national defense army” wouldn’t make much sense, the people (you and I) are the militia.

Even if there is a dedicated army of sorts, it will have to be privately funded, so it’ll just be an extension of private security. But again, things will work differently in a truly stateless society, so we would have to think differently about it.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Was ancient Ireland before ICBMs? Asking for a friend.

quallnet
The only militia I need is my .45. Oh Juan, you so funny. If the national subjects were permitted to own ICBM equivalants, some would. Frankly, the fact that it’s gotten this far is sickening. As a collective we’re far more interested in spending trillions on nukes then taking care of the homeless.

ⒶMP3083
Trillions of dollars could’ve been used to feed , cloth, and house every human on Earth. Too bad it’s wasted on nukes and war.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > quallnet
It appears quallnet thinks an ICBM can be shot down with a .45 – talk about being funny. Has anyone here ever heard of MAD as a defensive deterrent?

While I agree that the trillions on military shit would have been better spent helping humans, the fact is it wasn’t and we’re faced with that reality. The US is threatened with the possibility of a N. Korea, Russia or China launching an ICBM with nuke tip. Iran is working on it. This is the reality of international differences in ideologies. Reality sucks.

ⒶMP3083 > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“The US is threatened with the possibility of a N. Korea, Russia or China launching an ICBM with nuke tip. Iran is working on it.”

Yeah. That’s “word on the street” as far as I’m concerned. The biggest threat I see in the US is the US government, and they’re much closer to me than those other countries threatening everyone with their nukes. Also, Iran has nukes? Holy crap. I thought they had RPG’s, guns and rocks.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > ⒶMP3083
Not yet but, Iran is working on it. I totally agree that the US govt is a threat. Of course I’ve realized this 50 years ago and is why I planned my Life accordingly.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“While I agree that the trillions on military shit would have been better spent helping humans, the fact is it wasn’t and we’re faced with that reality.”

“Compromise”?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Uh, no. Feeding, clothing, and housing every human on Earth was not on the table.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Even if it was, and the majority wanted your money to be spent on nukes anyway, does that make any difference?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Yeah. The difference is – I don’t go for forced altruism. I think it is the most insidious evil. Getting benefit from a “nuke shield” is different all together.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
How did nukes suddenly become a benefit?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Suddenly? Ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Ever hear of MAD? Has the US ever been nuked? Do you worry about being nuked?

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
In our example with the context of feeding, clothing, and housing people, why would building nukes take the priority and be considered “beneficial”?

I’m aware that nukes are essentially used as deterrents, but I also think it’s yet another expression of statist fear and insanity that’s gone out of control. I really want nothing to do with it, but ofc in coercive statist land, that’s not really an option without trying to avoid taxes.

Do I worry about being nuked? Nope, not at all. I’m one of those few individuals that does not fear death; I am ready for it at any moment. What I do worry about is living a life worth living, that seems to be the real challenge here (death in comparison is an easy thing).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Ever see the results of a nuke in Japan? Totally wiped out food, clothing and housing for people. And the ability to provide them. Deterring that from happening anywhere again, was beneficial. You have the benefit of not worrying about being nuked, as a result. Now, I realize you are young, did not live in the 50s or 60s and have no children to worry about their future. It’s easier to be self-centered as a youth, although some adults remain so. Other people do have children and that shapes one’s thinking, your position on death notwithstanding.

I would suggest that “living a Life worth living” has always been a challenge for humans, especially for those who want such a Life for their children and their children’s children. It is only those with strong character that face said challenge and succeed. People have survived much worse statism than exists in the US. I wonder what your make-up is considering that you worry about about living Life. And I wonder what you are doing about it to alleviate your worry. “Worry” is emotionally manufactured by one’s imagination. Before nuke deterrence, being nuked was a real fear as it was based on a real danger.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Perhaps worry isn’t the most accurate word, I just mean nukes take up zero concern on my mind when compared to trying to make something of this life (and I think this would apply to most people today anyway).

I’m aware of the atrocities that occurred in Nagasaki. The solution is to not build such devastating things in the first place, a crazy idea I know.

But trying to stick to the original point, if you think it would be beneficial to fund nukes, you can do that, but I shouldn’t have to contribute to that at all. This is the kind of “compromise” I do not agree with.

Regarding living a life worth living, I should clarify that I’m not just thinking of myself (though I don’t have children yet).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
“I shouldn’t have to contribute to that at all. The question is – HAVE you contributed at all?”

Yes, thanks to the deterrent of MAD and SALT talks, most people aren’t concerned about nukes today. In the past it was the opposite. Nukes were widely considered a clear and present existential danger. This consideration led to the SALT talks and treaties, ie: compromises, AND to the diminished funding of nukes. Through this same time period to today, funding for food, clothing, housing, healthcare, education, and other assistance for people skyrocketed.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Assuming thes”Btw, I don’t call this “compromise”. Don’t know how you come to that.”e things were and are funded via taxation, the answer would be yes (but ofc I have no idea what % if any went to nuke programmes).

But if I could choose where my tax money would go, I certainly wouldn’t choose to fund nukes (or things like the military). Even if there are valid reasons for such things, in principle, I should be the one deciding where my hard earned money goes.

It’s just not the same thing when you are not part of the decision making process. This goes back to the question of ownership and slavery (that discussion you had with Brian some time back).

Imagine being a kid and working a job for your own salary, but then your parents forcibly take a portion of what you earn (taxation) and decide what to do with it without your input at all. You call this “compromise”, but I see injustice here, especially considering that this can very easily be a voluntary thing if the money is truly required for something.

The difference irl is that politicians aren’t our parents and are certainly no wiser. What we have (in terms of taxation) is a system where adults forcibly take from other adults and think they know what’s best for them. And oftentimes, these people only do what is best for them at the expense of the taxpayers.

It’s a different thing if things are decided as a community and everyone is involved, and everyone’s voice counts etc. But that obviously isn’t the case with our modern systems, so your idea of “compromise” simply doesn’t apply in the same way (imo this “compromise” is just a euphemism for being taken advantage of).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I’m gonna assume you realize that most everything you wrote falls under political philosophy. One such philosophy is that you would more than likely be unable to have your stated choices without some type of govt institution to enable them. Otherwise you are subjected to “state of nature” conflicts with no guarantees. Especially when it comes to earning and retaining the fruits of one’s labor. Debates on differing political philosophies have endured for centuries and continue today. I see no resolution in future centuries. I can’t think of any political philosophy, such as you or Brian desire, operating on planet Earth at this time. Nor do I see any widespread tendency towards it.

As a kid, if your parents have provided the necessities for your survival, ie: food, shelter, security and an environment in which you can be “working a job for your own salary” – is their “taxing” you for these benefits out of line? Btw, I don’t call this “compromise”. Don’t know how you come to that. I’ve referred to compromise in the context of dispute resolution. Anyway, should you be able to ignore the benefits you have derived from your parents and call them tyrannical if they “tax” you? Who is experiencing injustice? Out on your own, in the “state of nature”, your salary would be “taxed” in the form of costs for shelter, food, utilities, security, etc. Few of these things are voluntary. To the contrary, they are requirements for thriving and surviving.

I get that you have your personal political philosophy which you consider ideal. Unfortunately, you were born and raised under an operating political philosophy your parents chose. Millions of people in the world have left the conditions under which they were born, for what they considered a better system. Millions have and are trying to get to the US, for instance. To them, the operating political philosophy in the US is their “Utopia”. Their “Utopia” is your “injustice”. So you see, political philosophy debates will continue as people have differing views based on their experiences.

As long as you live where a political philosophy has been adopted via compromise, cooperation and acceptance by an overwhelming majority – you’re f**ked. That’s your and Brian’s reality. Accept it, change it or be in a constant state of frustration or “slavery” as you and Brian like to say. I’ve spent 50 years trying to get people politically motivated to get rid of the most hated thing in the US – the income tax. Too many lazy scared sheeple.

But hey, if musing and waxing philosophically helps you cope, good for you.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Well the fact that you can’t get people motivated to wrangle the hydra is your reality, so what makes that goal any more “attainable”?

It’s actually less attainable because the very mentality that wants any government is the same mentality that makes it grow out of control (each and every time). It’s an attempt to solve a problem from the same level of thought that created it.

So if it’s not more attainable, is it at least more preferable, in the unlikely event that it should succeed? No. It’s definitively less preferable to have a small hydra that’s accurately directed by majority opinion, than to have none at all.

So neither of us have ”likely to be attained”, but one of us has a solution that’s preferable if successful, and at least has some small chance of success due to it arising from a different level of consciousness than the problem itself.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
I think you missed my point, re: the income tax and motivation of people to free themselves from that slavery. You know, “eating an elephant one bite at a time”? So my reality, based on empirical evidence, is that people today are more prone to give up freedom for security than security for freedom. I find it interesting that you seem to think that the sheeple consciousness arising from a different level has ANY chance of occurring, let alone succeeding. I wish you could share some of what you’re smoking. lol

Preferable if successful? Preferable by whom? I think the Serenity Prayer is appropriate at this point.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Potential cannot be gauged by current circumstance.

The reason mass enlightenment has a better chance than a delicate balance of managing the dragon is because the enlightened state is the core of our nature, the inherent potential of every person.

To maintain a moderate state of corruption is unfeasible because the very nature of corruption is to corrupt. It is an active detriment, a creeping death; it does not sit still.

That’s why the greatest attempt ever made at “small government” yielded the greatest threat to worldwide freedom the world has ever known. The Constitution better guised slavery as freedom, allowing the corruption to spread unrecognized and thus unchecked.

Freedom is innately preferable to slavery. It’s like saying satiety is preferable to starvation. Preferable to whom? To everyone. But like any corruption junkie, many don’t know what’s truly preferable to themselves.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
“Preferable to whom? To everyone.”

I’d love to see your evidence for that claim. I doubt you have interviewed all people of Earth.

I get it. You have your philosophy of what is ideal and what is corrupt. Doesn’t mean it is shared by everyone else.

I note you have asked people what they do for a living. I’m curious as to what YOU do for a living that you perceive as good?

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“Btw, I don’t call this “compromise”. Don’t know how you come to that.”

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean then by “compromise”.

With the parent-child example, how the money is taken (or given) makes all the difference. Regardless of the reasoning, if it’s taken by force without consent, it’s theft, and that’s wrong. If the money is given as compensation or a gift, then it’s a voluntary interaction (and that by definition is not a “tax”).

However, we are going off track here as this isn’t fully analogous to the supposed “need” to fund nukes. This idea that we need to fund nukes via tax (theft) to protect us from other nukes (which are also funded by tax/theft), is imo a circle of statist madness. If anything, it highlights the problem of statism even more strongly, as the nuke problem is fundamentally a statism problem (due to the very notion of “nations” and the us vs them mentality etc.).

Nobody “needs” to build huge bombs that could potentially devastate the whole planet, that’s a lie. We don’t need vaccines either for a supposed virus that has a 99.9% survival rate, that’s another (current) lie. Nukes don’t “keep you safe”, and neither do poisonous vaccines. These are just narratives being fed to us, so we can follow along and do the bidding of the controllers.

“Debates on differing political philosophies have endured for centuries and continue today. I see no resolution in future centuries. I can’t think of any political philosophy, such as you or Brian desire, operating on planet Earth at this time. Nor do I see any widespread tendency towards it.”

And tbh, with the way things are going, neither do I. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t discuss these things at all, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we should therefore just give up and comply (and “compromise”) with all the sheep following some other guys dystopian “political philosophy”.

Nobody is saying that the whole world has to bow down to one way of living (ironically that’s what statism promotes).

I see two paths here: the path to greater levels of freedom, or the path to greater levels of tyranny.

It’s obvious what path the sheep are choosing. I stand for freedom; even if that’s only achievable on a small-scale in small ways, so be it, that would be the goal.

In the future, technology will be law (particularly by those who own it). This is the space that I work in, and it’s clear to me that the biggest opportunity for change (for better or worse), will be determined by technology (particularly in how people utilise it).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Like I said in the next sentence – I referred to “compromise” in the context of dispute/conflict resolution.

You have your definition of “need” and others have theirs. Obviously, before you were born, people saw a “need” for nukes. Today, not so much. At one time nukes did “keep you safe”, your thoughts notwithstanding. You weren’t there.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
We only have a few actual “needs” to survive, anything else is a want or a belief. People may have “believed” that they needed nukes to be safe, but it’s obviously not the bomb that’s doing any protecting, it’s simply people believing that they are now safe because of it. It’s no different to a religious believer, believing that his cross or some chants “keep him safe”.

It’s fine if that’s what people want to believe, but keep me out of it. I believe nukes make things significantly more unsafe (for obvious reasons), but that’s my belief, and I have no real obligation to fund the beliefs of other people, especially not if it’s forced.

Today most people see a “need” for vaccines, that doesn’t make their beliefs true.

(And it doesn’t matter if I wasn’t there, the principle is the same.)

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
What are these “few actual” needs to survive? Let’s start there.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Asking people what they think wouldn’t prove anything. There are objective standards of what’s ideal, corrupt, and therefore preferable. I find it frustrating and condescending that you resort to ”Well, that’s your opinion” on topics where real answers exist.

Are Skittles a corruption? Absolutely. It’s not my opinion. They are artificial in a way that is detrimental to both body and mind. They exist solely to opportunistically exploit a natural feature of man in order to facilitate the material accumulation of the few at the expense of the many.

All logic and basic reason points to this conclusion. To suggest that the opinion Skittles are part of an ideal diet” is equally valid to this conclusion is absurd.

Trade IS a corruption. Government IS a corruption. It can be proven better than any argument I’ve ever heard to the contrary (and I’ve hunted and heard many), and so, at least for now, these conclusions stand as the position that reside closest to Truth as man can know it.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Sorry to hurt your feelers as it is never my intent. It’s just many of your “observations” run contrary to the real life I’ve observed.

First, there is no coercion in the distribution and use of Skittles. I’ve never used them and neither have anyone in my family. I don’t recall any friends that used them. It’s a friggin free choice to consume them. Perhaps so people simply get enjoyment from them and thus they are healthy for their mind. Perhaps they are a replacement while stopping smoking, which would make them healthy for the body. Or maybe, just maybe, this is a ridiculous argument for “corruption”. That may be my opinion.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“What are these “few actual” needs to survive? Let’s start there.”

Air, water, food, sleep/dreaming (without these you will eventually die).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
There are people who can’t survive without certain medications even though they have ample food, water, sleep. Are there no such things as “special” needs by some? And since we’re being basic, many people have died from lack of security and safety, even though they had food, water and sleep. Or perhaps with the lack of security, they would be unable to get food, water or sleep to sustain them. So, reliance on others may also be actually needed for some to survive – water, food, sleep, notwithstanding.

Depending on one’s situation, actual needs for survival vary.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
What I highlighted were the bare minimum physical needs (these are objective):

– Oxygenation
– Hydration
– Dreaming
– Sustenance

When it comes to these bare necessities, there is no “your definition of needs” and “my definition of needs”, we all share the same exact “fundamental biological needs”. These are not “opinions” that can be changed on a whim, but are objective facts of this world.

We also have psychological/spiritual “needs” in order to “thrive” as opposed to just “survive” (to have the will to live/to live a good life etc). But how these are expressed are often subjective:

-To have shelter, to feel safe, to feel at home etc.

-To have relationships, a sense of connection etc.

-To have a creative expression etc.

These are needs of the mind that are needed to live a good life, but again, these are subjective, and should be distinguished from the needs of the body that are needed to purely survive. The needs of the body are objective and satiable, but the “needs of the mind” are potentially not. You might believe that you “need” to have all the nukes in the world in order to “feel safe”, but this would be a subjective belief (it’s not a true physical need).

“Are there no such things as “special” needs by some?”

Regarding people with “special needs”, well, they have special needs (they are the exception, not the rule). Even so, food is medicine. If someone requires some kind of medicine to survive, that is still a part of their sustenance.

Some might need to rely on others to survive, some might not. Some might need their whiskey to “thrive”, and others might not, but nobody absolutely needs it to survive (else there would be a whiskey bottle in every household).

That was my original point with nukes: nobody “needs” nukes to survive (that’s just a narrative).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
If the Japanese, who were killed by nukes, had nukes themselves prior – history has shown us that more than likely they would not have been nuked. Up until that time they “felt safe”. Therefore, for THEIR survival in this instance – they “needed” nukes, your “actual few needs” notwithstanding. It’s only because they didn’t have nukes, that they were nuked.

So, one basic “need”, for survival, you left out is protection from environmental dangers. I think this is more basic for survival than “dreaming”.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass & Abdul
Relevant to this conversation is the idea of secondary needs (as described by John Rose), which are needs generated by a previous misalignment (like the “need” for nukes due to others having nukes).

It’s a downward spiral, an ill wind that blows no one any good, as each response to error generates another error-derived cause from which new effects spring. For this reason, there are no solutions but core solutions. Anything short of addressing root causes will not solve a problem, nor provide lasting mitigation.

Our entire society is built around addressing artificial, secondary needs, while ignoring (and being purposefully diverted from) root causal factors. Religion, government, money, medicine, marriage… all answers to secondary “needs”, born of error.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“If the Japanese, who were killed by nukes, had nukes themselves prior – history has shown us that more than likely they would not have been nuked.”

That’s just an assumption. It’s very possible that they could have been nuked anyway, or perhaps both sides would have ended up being nuked, or worse, a worldwide nuclear war could have ensued resulting in a much worse situation for everybody.

And why arbitrarily stop at that point in history? Why not go back to the point where these nukes were first being created? Or at least to the point before they were fired?

The US had already won, there was no need to nuke the Japanese, but some evil bastard decided to go ahead with it anyway. By building a nuke, you just gave that psychopath a whole lot more power to destroy than he would have otherwise have, but no, what we need are even more nukes! And I must pay for it! Ah yes, the prospect of worldwide nuclear war occuring at any time really makes me “feel safe”.

You’re never safe from someone else’s evil deeds. Morals are far more “needed” in this world than “nukes”. Moral behaviour wouldn’t have allowed such a scenario to ever occur in the first place, but who “needs” morals when you could have nukes, right?

“Up until that time they “felt safe”. Therefore, for THEIR survival in this instance – they “needed” nukes, your “actual few needs” notwithstanding.”

I didn’t invent these “few actual needs”, these are simply the objective facts of this world that are true whether you like it or not.

What was really “needed” was for the nuke button not to be pressed, or even better, for nukes not be created in the first place. But when statism is the religion and morals are thrown out the window, building weapons of mass destruction somehow becomes a good thing and is “needed”.

But nobody “needed” nukes a thousand years ago because it’s not a real need, but guess what? Everyone that existed back then still needed to breath, eat, sleep etc.

You could be living the utmost luxurious life with all your needs and wants met, with all the protection in the world to make you “feel safe”, and that still doesn’t guarantee you from dying. Who knows, one day you could slip in the bath and crack your head. Does that mean we all “need” to wear a safety helmet at all times in order to “feel safe” from that unfortunate incident?

In the future, people could be attacked by space lasers. Where are your space lasers? Don’t you need them to “feel safe”? If only we had space lasers, we could have (maybe) prevented some other evil bastard from attacking us with their space lasers. Maybe if we attacked them first with our space lasers before they had the chance to attack us, maybe we would’ve “survived”. You must be taxed for these space lasers, it’s “essential for our survival” (and so are vaccines and masks).

These are all fear based narratives and propaganda, and are not true natural needs, they’re manufactured needs at best, outright lies at worst. Nobody actually “needs” nukes, or helmets, or masks to survive, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have them. But I certainly shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s protection, yet somehow with nukes my contribution becomes a “necessity”. People can have nukes if they want, but it’s a lie to suggest that it’s absolutely “needed” and that I must be made to pay for it no matter what. It’s precisely because it is not needed that payment for it must be forced, otherwise no sane person would voluntarily fund a massive bomb that benefits no-one in reality.

“So, one basic “need”, for survival, you left out is protection from environmental dangers. I think this is more basic for survival than “dreaming”.”

I did mention “shelter”, we arguably need protection from the elements, but sleep/dreaming is more fundamental than that. It’s basically impossible to go without it, but if you somehow managed to go without sleep for long enough, you’d eventually die of psychosis and be “dreaming” permanently.

You could survive without adequate shelter or “protection” for a very long time, it just might not be a very comfortable life.

And besides, nukes don’t protect you from environmental dangers, if anything, they are an environmental danger unto themselves.

ⒶMP3083 > Abdul
The concept of having nukes, as keeping or making one feel safe, makes no sense. As far as I know, a nuke has been meant for one thing — revenge. This business about “keeping safe” or “feeling safe” is simply an overreaction.

“Maybe if we attacked them first with our space lasers before they had the chance to attack us, maybe we would’ve “survived”.”

“Preemptive strike” is the euphemism for what you just described here. It makes about as much sense as a black guy walking into a bar and sneak attacking a Neo-Nazi guy because black guy thought he would get attacked by him. Now that the Neo-Nazi is out cold, the black guy can “feel safe” drinking his cocktail.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
A thousand years ago people needed protection from environmental dangers to be able to continue to breathe, eat, sleep, etc. They probably used fire ,clubs, spears, etc. as deterrents.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
There is a hierarchy of needs, and the most important needs are the ones that you will die the quickest without (regardless of circumstances).

Without oxygen, most people will die within minutes. Without proper hydration, most will die in days. Without sleep, the body will fail within weeks. Without food, it could be weeks for some, possibly months for others. As you go higher up the list, your survival become more dependent on “circumstances” (it becomes more and more subjective).

The reason why shelter/protection/self-defence isn’t first on the list is because it’s possible to be in a circumstance where none is needed. If all the other essential needs are met, then you could survive for a long time, possibly for the entirely of your lifespan. Again, you could slip in the bath and crack your head, that doesn’t suddenly make “safety” more of a fundamental need than the need to breathe. In the worst possible scenario, without proper safety, you could die in seconds. In the best possible scenario, you could live out your entire lifespan. Without oxygen though, you have minutes either way (hence, oxygenation is a more fundamental “need”).

There are more “needs” that I didn’t mention. There’s also “excretion”, which is defo a biological need. There’s also reproduction, if survival of the species is of concern.

But the most basic ones I believe are the ones I listed. “Safety” would come after my list, not before.

Heck, you don’t have to agree with me, Maslow structures it the same way:
https://amp3083.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/4129a-maslow.jpg

bbblackwell
What kind of shelter do primates have? I think the whole shelter thing is largely an artificial secondary need resulting from living outside of one’s natural habitat.

Of course you’ll want to have some measure of protection in certain situations, so don’t take this to be absolute. I like Maslow’s “security” as a more precise description of the actual need.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I am doubtful that Maslow, being born in Brooklyn, ever lived primitively in the wilderness for any length of time where he was not the apex predator. Hell, even Evolution is premised on adaptations to deal with the dangers of environment for necessary survival. It’s only because you, like Maslow, have lived where most of the dangers of environment have been tamed that his “hierarchy of needs” could be imagined or given any relevance. To equate slipping in the bathtub with living as I have described is a bit of a red herring.

I don’t know what primates and their shelter have to do with my position. I haven’t been discussing shelter.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Nobody is saying that it’s not important to protect from the dangers of the environment, but how does that supersede the need for sustenance and oxygen? You make no valid case for it other than stating it as true.

There’s a certain logic to the hierarchy of needs that you don’t seem to be understanding (it’s essentially just biology 101). The human body needs oxygen first before a hunting stick, that’s just a fact. With your position, you’re putting the cart before the horse.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Wrong. You’ve misinterpreted what I have said. I haven’t intimated that protection from environmental dangers supersedes the need for sustenance and oxygen. To the contrary, I have noted that you have left it out of your “few actual needs”. Is not evolution a biological process? Is it not also biology 101? I realize my facts don’t fit your narrative but, those biological entities that did not evolve protection from environmental dangers did not survive. In nature it is easy to observe the inherent protections and deterrents against environmental dangers that enable organisms (animals and plants) to continue to breathe, eat and survive. Humans have the ability to construct non-inherent methods to protect from and deter environmental dangers.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I’m pretty sure I did acknowledge protection/security/shelter (whatever you want to call it), I just put it in its own category (similar to Maslow’s diagram), because it is more open to interpretation/subjective.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
You might as well put sleep in its own category too then. From my cursory review of scientific studies, no one knows why we sleep. It’s open to interpretation per Division of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School – there are only unproven theories.

Or like Maslow, just stick it where it fits your narrative.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Your narrative was that nukes are a “need”. You’ve failed to convince anyone of that narrative.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
My narrative was that at one time nukes were a “need” to protect from and deter environmental dangers. I wasn’t trying to convince anyone, so no failure involved.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
No, nukes are an environmental danger in of themselves, at best, they might deter the evil/destructive behaviour of other humans (to not be so trigger happy with the nuke button), but nukes cause that problem in the first place… Nagasaki is proof enough that nukes don’t protect you, they harm you and everything around you, and give more power to those who wish to do evil.

As for sleep, it’s a biological necessity, and that’s a fact. After a certain amount of time without it, you will die.

The protection that you’re talking about was more “psychology” than “biology”. The body has its natural adaptive mechanisms to protect itself from environmental dangers (the skin increases melanin production from increased sun exposure for example). These kinds of biological protections are automatic and is not something we need to think about much, but the kind of protection you’re talking about are of sticks and stones, and that’s highly dependent on “psychology”, highly dependent on circumstances, and is open to interpretation (unlike sleep where there is an objective time limit to how long you can last without it).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
“As for sleep, it’s a biological necessity, and that’s a fact. After a certain amount of time without it, you will die.”

Citation needed. Maslow was not a sleep scientist.

Had Japan had nukes, would they have been nuked? History after WW2 intimates the answer is NO. There would have been a protection/deterrent as evidenced by the realities of MAD that followed WW2. Which, by the way, was successful as evidenced by the fact no other nukes have been used. See also the SALT talks and treaties.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I don’t recall referencing Maslow for that point. If you want specific citations, you can research them yourself as I have no need to convince you of anything.

There are studies about dreaming and sleeping that have found that after about more than a week without any sleep whatsoever, brain functions are significantly affected resulting in memory loss, paranoia, hallucinations etc. Others have found that dreaming is actually more critical than sleeping itself, because no matter how much sleep they allow an individual to have, if they prevent the individual from dreaming, they eventually dissolve into psychosis, and you can die from that.

In order to continue living and maintain normal functionality, sleeping/dreaming is essential. Have you ever tried going without sleep for more than a week or two? I bet not. Try it, see what happens. It’s actually near impossible to do it alone, because you still end up falling into micro dozes of sleep anyway (that’s how much the body “needs” it).

“Had Japan had nukes, would they have been nuked? History after WW2 intimates the answer is NO.”

Had people not been running their lives on fear and blind obedience, and had the moral common sense to not waste time, energy and resources building massive weapons of destruction in the first place, would Japan have been nuked? NO. All that wasted effort could have gone towards something more productive and beneficial to humanity, instead, it went towards death and destruction. What a pity.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I only wanted a citation to support your claim. If you have none then your claim is dismissed.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I can provide citations, and you can literally find them in seconds based on the information I’ve given you. If you can’t put in even a little bit of effort in research, then it tells me you’re not really interested in the subject or in this conversation, you’re only interested in your own narrative.

You can dismiss claims, but not facts of nature.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Why do keep insinuating that I am denying facts of nature? EVERY source I have researched regarding sleep, says no one knows why we sleep. There are only unproven theories.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“EVERY source I have researched regarding sleep, says no one knows why we sleep.”

Every source YOU have researched. Keep looking.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Why? I’m convinced.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Convinced of what?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
If no one knows why we sleep, ie: the function it performs, it would be difficult to prove that it is one of your “few actual needs”.

DⒶrth Ted > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I agree that citations are good to have. But I’ve seen plenty of studies that prove whatever the group paying for the study wants it to prove. I even worked at a place that did that, A top university.

So, my question for you, Juan, is: have you ever gone extended periods without sleep?

I have, and I get totalled cracked out. My thoughts get scattered, and somewhat incoherent, and I don’t trust the dicisions that I make. It’s almost annout of body experience, where you’re watching yourself do things, and don’t understand the reasoning, because your reasoning has devolved into the one next move, and not 5-15 steps ahead, a usual.

That’s proof enough for me that I need sleep , as a basic human need or I suffer very adverse effects. It’s easy to test.

And putting a University name in from of a study telling me it is or isn’t necessary, isn’t gonna change the fact that I’ve found it necessary for me.

I’ve also experienced dealing with others who haven’t slept, and observed the same issues with them.

You seem very caught up on something with this subject. And I don’t really see how it’s pertinent to the conversation you were having before this tiny aspect drew your attention.

Sleep deprivation is also a tactic the military uses on their enemies, as a weapon.

Everyone sleeps. And most can’t not sleep, even if they try. Children for example, hit a wall and fall fast asleep, even if they don’t want to.

I would say that the burden of proof is on the claim that sleep isn’t necessary.

Unless you’re really just trying to debate the definition of “necessary”.

Is food necessary only because you know about nutrients? Or was it necessary before that, as every plant and animal knows from birth?

Oh no, I implied that plants know things. Maybe not conscious, intelligent knowing, but even plants “know” which side of the ground the leaves go and which side the roots go.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
This is something you can literally prove to yourself.

If you don’t think sleep is one of your few actual needs, please prove me wrong and choose not to sleep ever again. Let me know how that goes.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > DⒶrth Ted
Bottom line. What I am saying is that there is more evidence that proves protection from environmental dangers are more necessary than sleep – since no one knows the function of sleep. OR, at the very least, protection from environmental dangers is on equal footing with sleep – even though no one knows sleep’s function. All this is making me sleepy. LOLOL

Join our Discord server!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

Find me at:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3883/
http://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree
https://odysee.com/@AMP3083:4

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s