wrong, you live on through the contact and communication you have with others, and their's forward as well.

Physically you contain atoms from every human to ever exist in your body. We all do.

And yes there is much between educating the world and sustainable... (Outlander, follow me here please)

Sustainable Peaceful Coexistence

We have to render our destructive nature into a flourishing nature, although alas if we fail on the next planet there may still be opportunities on the ones after that. Destruction does not have to be the fundamental nature of man, but if it is until we reach an intelligence beyond such, then it must be so.

For what good is all of this universe with nothing to witness it?

We are here to bare witness to such magnificence. So be it!

Outlander this solutions is very simple. Difficult to achieve, but simple. We must do both simultaneously.

are you choosing to ignore your responsibility to biology? To the future of life? Have you no soul, or heart, or conscience, or have your merely lost hope?

I tend to bring out the intense existential nihilism in people because I encourage people to get tough and work hard for one another to thrive.

That's beautiful poetry, but lacking in evidence, context, and substance.

No...

I am
Just am
He's just saying he is an entity. An existence. He isnt describing it. He's saying he's capable of recognizing that he is an entity because of his ability to report the nature of his existence to himself. If he weren't able to do this, he could not even prove whether or not he exists at all, but because he can think, he can know he is existing.

Map:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/multimedia/pia16873.html

I would even go as far as to say you are one part in everything in existence, and you retain ownership of it because you are the one experiencing it.

uhh... yeah?

Your psychology might be an accumulation of your experience, but you are also an entity. A real thing.

you cannot prove whether or not reality is only taking place in the mind, and further I'd wager that it isn't. Thought and an individual's reality are not the same thing.

no... because there is a difference between you as an individual entity, and the experience you are having. They are two different things.

sure it can, because not only does it cover the self, it also extends to anything experienced by the self, and to the reader it prosed the question of whether my reality and your reality take place on the same tangible plane of existence, if they are similar or vastly different (does my blue appear the same as your blue?) and it prosed the question of the driving force of the human experience (whether anything outside of my own experience is more than a projection taking place in my own experience)

Descartes is saying "I am something"
I am saying "my experience is something as well"

I dont think it does negate our reality. I think it proves the experience of the self, affirming that one can be sure of one's existence on the pretenses of being capable of thinking, or experiencing the existence. My interpretation of the Cogito's intention is to seek proof for anything, and it attempts to strip the entire experience of existence to the bare minimum. I believe Descartes would say along the lines of "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt." Perhaps we have a different interpretation.

doesnt matter where they originate, they are experienced regardless

your reality would be from the perspective of a brain... in a vat. Aha

this doesnt prove that it went to far. You have only proven the Cogito to be true.

As for the necessity of my proposal, it is to shed light unto the concept that reality is tangible.
Because if reality is tangible, the argument cannot be made that existence is meaningless because it means that what I am experiencing is not nothingness, but something, and so it retains the justification for being respected as such.

you're misconstruing the difference between my reality (the one I am experiencing, which is tangible in so far as I am capable of experiencing it)
and base reality (the ultimate building block for all of existence, reality number one, first edition)

yeah I think that's basically what I'm attempting to say

you are presenting a connotation of the original text, not refuting mine.

no... I think therefore my reality exists

right I changed it from only to cover multi dimension and singularity

My angle here is to prove that the reality we experience is tangible. Because I know I exist, I can also conclude that the experience I am having is actually happening and not merely nothingness

On these pretenses it has to ring true because you are experiencing the exact experience as you.

but whether or not a person's perspective of reality is fully true doesn't matter. Regardless it is their experience and interpretation of reality. This is why I've said "my reality" in order to indicate the singular depiction of the individual.

To me the question of "how do we resolve the human condition?" is just the same as asking any other question, perhaps "why is the sky blue?" but the answer is more complicated.
The answer to why the sky is blue may have at one point seemed impossible to solve aside from mere happenstance, but eventually we met a point in time where we could reconcile it enough to be at least satisfied with a reasonable answer based on evidence of quantitative data and developments across multiple types of experiments validating the same conclusions.

There is no reason for me to believe similar resolution cannot come from experimentation and reasoning around the question of the human condition and ways to resolve it's discrepancy on the survival and prosperity of the human species and biology.

Look I'm also not saying I have all of the moral understanding of the universe. I also realize it's my personal responsibility to work toward maintaining coexistence with myself and with those around me. I can lend positive influence and work to be the best version of myself possible in hopes it will result in positive impact on the world... but that isnt enough to me. This does not satisfy me. I realize what I can do personally to combat the human condition. I want to know what *we can do as a unit to mitigate human suffering. I wish to figure out how to make this happen in a large way that has a high positive impact on everyone.

And I know it's a freakin huge question to step back and to try to look at the whole picture through history and to attempt to point out the places we went wrong and the effects it has on us now and where to go from here. It's not a small question by any means. There's love and hate and money and pleasure and pain and heartache and heirarchy and so much. It's a huge puzzle and maybe one of the most important puzzles we could solve, and I feel like most of us know this, but many of us either give up trying to solve it, ignore it completely, or we go off on some wild tangled tangents of indoctrination.

Anyway.. I have to learn to accept that I am not alone responsible for the suffering of the world. It is very unlikely for me to reach this goal of planetary joy, and I have to remember this as I continue to fail.

And I do believe that while I may not find the end all suffering answer, I do have the potential to find pieces of that answer, so I will keep trying.

It is nearly an endless task. I have found that it would seem a large portion of suffering can be attributed to fear, not to be confused with respect. Overt greed, fear of powerlessness. Excessive competition, fear of inadequacy. Bigotry, fear of culture which one cannot relate.

Bringing courage and bringing confidence to humanity to alleviate these would be a huge step in my opinion, but how to relieve the pressure of 110billion people worth of pent up trust issues is boggling.

Maybe i need to do more study of governance to see if I can make mental adjustments to social systems, or perhaps create a new one.

I realize very well that I can make my own peace and take my own steps toward attempting to resolve this within my own circle, and I can have peace amongst my own life, but that is merely a side quest in all of this for me.

I needed to be reminded that I will likely fail the task of solving the human condition, and I need to accept that while I work on the task and try to separate my emotion from my reasoning.

The curious thing I find when mentioning the human condition to philosophers is their willingness to dismiss it as an impossible problem. I realize utopia is a very far shot, but I don't think we have to reach perfection to find peace with one another, and I do think there can be ways to make larger steps than we currently do toward coexistence and planetary education.

Historical population

I don't feel like the majority of people are only in it for themselves, but perhaps people have already had this conversation with themselves, and choose to take the immoral ground strictly for survivability for themselves and their close relatives?
I guess we also dont fully comprehend how to distribute opportunity equally, and so this is another road block. Sheer ignorance.

We dont know how to get along, or why, and they counteract each other in a cycle.

So if we are reaching for this goal that seems so far fetched, an equilibrium in growth and sustainability, but it is so distant it almost seems impossible, then what is it that keeps humans striving for this feat of survivability for one another?

Hope? Is that what's carrying the human race?

Philosophy does not equal morality.

basically any recorded definition of meaning fits the parameters of my expressions here.

I enjoyed reading your writing, thank you.

Duct tape bananas.

Use it's reach to encourage fossil fuel divestment world wide.

What is the alternative? Nothingness? That sounds incredibly boring to me. I'll go with living even though it's sometimes regurgitated ass scabs. Still way more interesting than nothingness.

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are never fully congruent and this is why "democracy" (if you can even call it that anymore) and capitalism encourage competition to hopefully facilitate innovation and abundance.

On paper we would think it works to alleviate the imbalance, and to a degree it does because even the poor of America are fat and rich, but eventually this system plateaus as well when people start to realize the competition also stifles innovation because it often hinders opportunity for the sake of victory, personal gain over another, or the financial upper hand at the cost of others.

We take advantage of each other for prosperity when in reality the prosperity could have been distributed to the bottom of the ladder (third world laborers etc) with more growth in mind for their personal existence.

We hog all of the resources. The entire chain works from the bottom up when it should work from both directions simultaneously.

We also steal from the earth and emit more chemicals than current biology is prepared to sustain, endangering all of us in order to win the competition.

We need to reinvent success to mean who can help biology sustain existence the most, not who can grab the most stuff.

My obligation to society and humanity is to facilitate their existence insofar as a purpose of existence is to exist and this resides within your purpose as well.

Because this resides in your purpose I respect your right to exist and I choose to see your existence forward to the best of my ability because I wish for all of existence to thrive insofar as it is capable of cohabitation.

You aren't burdened with a task. You are gifted with a right. I respect this right within myself and so I respect it within you.

Or hell buy the arr and give me back the word vomit. Make your own meanings regardless of mine. If you can't do that then why are you buying art?

If you don't want my word vomit to go with my physical vomit then don't buy it and move along.