• Read again, i correct about more of my philosophy about making paper fr

    From World-News2100@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 23 16:46:13 2021
    Hello...


    Read again, i correct about more of my philosophy about making paper
    from trees and about deforestation and more..

    I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

    I invite you to read the following article about the environmental
    footprint of paper vs. electronic books:

    https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/08/the-environmental-footprint-of-paper-vs-electronic-books/

    And as you notice that the above article is just speaking about
    how much green house emissions we have with footprint of paper vs.
    electronic books, but i think that deforestation does not only
    cause green house emissions, but i think we have to take into account
    the the other following disadvantages:

    The disadvantages to deforestation are an increased amount of carbon
    dioxide emissions and soil erosion as well as the destruction of forest
    habitat and the loss of biological diversity of both plants and animals.

    Also 24 trees makes around one ton of paper, which is about around
    200,000 sheets, and you may use a piece of paper one or two times, but
    it can be recycled five to seven times. Recycling one ton of paper saves
    17 trees. If it’s recycled seven times, it saves 117 trees, but i think
    that it is not enough and it is not enough to recycle (Read in the
    following article so that to notice it: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-recycling-paper-bad-for-the-environment/),
    so it is why i think that reading digital or electronic books on
    computers is better than using paper books, and of course i am actually programming with HTML and CSS and Javascript so that to easy the job of creating a sophisticated digital or electronic books with HTML and CSS
    and Javascript with dynamically configurable HTML and CSS fonts.

    And i invite you to read the following articles:

    How Useful Is Recycling, Really?

    Read more here:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/01/recycling-wont-solve-climate-change/617851/

    How do people make paper out of trees, and why not use something else?

    Read more here:

    https://theconversation.com/how-do-people-make-paper-out-of-trees-and-why-not-use-something-else-156625


    Your Web Use Leaves A Carbon Footprint, Here's How You Can Reduce It

    Read more here:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilyeoh/2017/07/26/your-web-use-leaves-a-carbon-footprint-heres-how-you-can-reduce-it/?sh=414bea159401


    More of my philosophy about relativism and about morality and more..

    I have just read the following article of white supremacists and
    neo-nazis of a white supremacist website called National Vanguard:

    Ancient Admixture: Death Blow to Racialism? — part 1

    https://nationalvanguard.org/2021/12/ancient-admixture-death-blow-to-racialism-part-1/


    So notice carefully on the above article how it is starting by saying:

    "And some of these discoveries do undermine old-fashioned racialism. But
    they do not undermine the higher racialism — the true understanding —
    held by us in the National Alliance.."

    So notice how it is saying:

    "The true understanding — held by us in the National Alliance"

    So as you are noticing it is not correct thinking, since I will say that "relativism" is a major disruptor of our mental immune system, but
    objective standards of right and wrong are our main defences against bad
    ideas. If we lose those standards, then anything goes, so this is why i
    say that saying in the above article of white supremacists: "the true understanding held by us in the National Alliance..." is too much
    certainty, since by reading the above article you will notice that it
    tries to prove that there is human genetical differences between ethnic
    groups like the ethnic groups of white and blacks etc., but notice that
    i am not saying races, since there is only one human race called the
    human race, but notice carefully that the above certainty of those white supremacists doesn't understand correctly how to introduce the right "randomness" like in Evolutionary algorithms so that to not get stuck in
    a local minimum and so that to converge towards the global optimum, so i
    think that this randomness like in Evolutionary algorithms that must be introduced is also allowing a certain level of Genetic mixture to happen
    inside a group or population, like 25% or so, like allowing Genetic
    mixture between arabs and white europeans etc. so that to ensure a kind
    of "diversity" that ensures genetical resilience or resilience. So this
    why i just said the following:

    I think i am a wise type of person, and from my thoughts below about
    morality, i will say that morality is like mathematics, since morality
    is universal as i am explaining below, but so that to be this
    abstraction of morality that i call "perfection at best", it must be
    thought really efficiently systemically, so then you notice that it must
    come with a kind of right patience or right tolerance so that to not be mistakes in the process codification of morality, so morality is in
    abstraction universal, but so that to be universal in reality it must be thought really efficiently and systemically.

    Also the white supremacists and others have to take into account my
    following thoughts so that to understand correctly:

    And read carefully my following thoughts about Nanotechnology and about Exponential Progress and about genetics:

    https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/mjE_2AG1TKQ

    And read my following thoughts:

    More of my philosophy about capitalism and about Class Struggle and more..

    Today i will discuss more about an important subject, so first i invite
    you to read my following previous thoughts:

    --

    "Is Class struggle "valid" and a good thing to have ?

    I will say that there is not one type of Class struggle, because
    we can have "levels" of Class Struggle, such as the Class Struggle of
    Communism and Marxism under Mao Zedong in China, and i think it is
    logically inferred in Marxism from the fact that there is antagonistic contradictions that are contradiction between the Chinese communists and Chinese bourgeoisie and between the imperialist camp and the socialist
    camp, so we can also consider that this antagonistic contradictions also
    comes from the fact that we are genetically predisposed to being smart
    or having a good memory efficiency etc. so this gives much more "chance"
    to those that have this kind of genetical predispositions to become rich
    and successful, so this is why Communism and Marxism says that we have
    to equalize much more between people, so this is why i think it is also
    a kind of competition that gives this kind of Class Struggle, but i will
    say that the fact that we equalize much more between people in a society
    is not good for "diversity" inside the society and it is not good for efficiency, since we have to have a level of diversity that brings
    "resilience" to the organization of a society, and even in economy we
    have to have a level of diversification of economy that brings
    resilience, so this is why i think that the level of Class struggle that
    we have to have doesn't look like archaism of Communism or Marxism,
    since i think we have to have some kind Social Assistance and Social
    Solidarity and we have to have social programs that help
    the weakest members of the society or the poors of the society in a kind
    of way, so we have also to have a level of Class Struggle that is like a competition that ensure that those kind of rights of providing
    some kind of social programs that helps the weakest members and the
    poors of the society are fought for in a civilized way inside such
    places as the congress and in Democracy. Now there is also other
    antagonist contradictions between the government and the people under
    Democracy or the communist regime, and inside two groups or more inside
    a political party or within a communist Party, and i think that we have
    to have civilized ways and manners like by vigorous criticism and self-criticism so that to resolve those kind of antagonist contradictions."

    --

    So as you are noticing in my above thoughts that i just said the following:

    "But i will say that the fact that we equalize much more between people
    in a society is not good for "diversity" inside the society and it is
    not good for efficiency, since we have to have a level of diversity that
    brings "resilience" to the organization of a society, and even in
    economy we have to have a level of diversification of economy that
    brings resilience"

    And here is how i will explain it more, look at Financial sector,
    so you can understand more capitalism and the mechanism of diversity
    that brings "resilience" and that needs a good allocation of resources
    in capitalism by reading my following thoughts:

    The biggest benefit of finance, is to provide opportunities to people,
    in the sense that in a world where there is no finance, the only way to
    start a company is to be born rich or to have saved for a long time. In
    a world where finance works well, the people with talent can actually
    start firms and reach their dreams without waiting to either have saved
    the money, or be lucky and receive it from their parents, and once you
    create this opportunity, you will have the most talented people take
    advantage of those opportunities, which favors growth, which favors a
    good allocation of resources and, ultimately, innovation. But we have to
    know what is the problem with finance, and here it is, read the
    following so that to understand:

    One last chance to fix capitalism

    Read more here:

    https://hbr.org/2020/03/one-last-chance-to-fix-capitalism

    So i invite you to look at the following video about capitalism:

    How to Improve Capitalism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOaJe68C-bU

    So as you notice in the above video that you can also fix capitalism by
    giving voting rights and tax advantages to long-term shareholders and
    not by raising taxes, and you need to have sovereign wealth funds and
    national pension funds representative of the long term collective
    interests etc, so i invite you to look the above video of "How to
    improve capitalism" so that to understand more.

    And if you want to know more about my views on capitalism,
    read them here:

    https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/cf3Wa4z8Xmc


    More of my philosophy about the "assets" of the central Bank of European
    Union and more..

    I have just looked at the following video of Olivier Berruyer , born on
    October 26 , 1975 in Bron that is a French blogger and actuary by
    profession, and you can read about him more here:

    https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Olivier_Berruyer?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

    And here is the video of him:

    NOTRE SYSTÈME FINANCIER VA S'EFFONDRER

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BknDh30qnTI


    So i think i am smart and i will say that Olivier Berruyer the actuary
    by profession in the above video is not so smart, since he is for
    example giving a graphic of the "assets" of the central Bank of European
    Union between years 1999 and 2021, and he is also explaining why it is problematic and he is also saying that the negative interest rate of the central Bank of European Union is something really problematic and that
    it must not be so, but i think that he is not so smart, since you can
    look at the graphic in the above video of the "assets" of the central of
    the Bank of European Union between years 1999 and 2021, and you can
    notice that it is not so problematic, since the time where this fast
    growth has happened is not too long and he is not saying that the very important thing to know is that this fast growth of the assets of
    central Bank of European Union also "coincides" with the crisis of
    Covid-19 and we have to know that negative interest rates are typically
    seen during weak economies and/or periods of deflation such as in period
    of the crisis of Covid-19, and you can read that even in Canada there
    can also be negative interest rates, read here so that to notice it:

    What would negative interest rates mean for Canadians?

    https://financialpost.com/moneywise/what-would-negative-interest-rates-mean-for-canadians-3

    And it is also related to my following thoughts:

    And here is also how i have just explained why the governments of Europe
    and USA are "spending" more in the economy and are following the
    Keynesian economics in this period of economic Crisis of Covid-19:

    More of my philosophy about the Keynesian economics and more..

    I invite you to look at the following new video about how the
    governments of Europe and USA are "spending" more in the economy
    and are following the Keynesian economics in this period of economic
    Crisis of Covid-19, since i think that Keynesian economics even if not
    followed all the time, has still its "advantage" in this kind of
    economic crisis, and the macroeconomic theories and models of Keynesian economics is about how aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) strongly influences economic output and inflations, so i invite you to
    look at the following new video so that to understand the how of it:

    The EU's New Plan to Transform the Economy - VisualPolitik EN

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2-HqLZJIhU

    More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and
    about my philosophy..

    You have to understand my contributions as a philosopher by reading my philosophy, but one of my contribution of my philosophy is also related
    to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, since the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche articulated ethical dilemma as a tension between the master
    vs. slave morality; the former in which we make decisions based on the assessment of consequences, and the latter in which we make decisions
    based on our conception of good vs. evil, but you have to understand my contribution of my philosophy about morality, since the first of my contribution about morality is that i am giving a kind of logical proof
    that morality is "universal", but not only that but i have invented
    quickly a proverb that abstract much more correctly morality so that you understand more, so read it below, so i think from my thoughts below of
    my contribution to philosophy, that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche
    is not so smart, since you will understand from my thoughts below of my philosophy that morality of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is an
    Elitist morality called in his philosophy the morality of the master,
    but notice that he is not so smart, since the morality of the master in
    his philosophy has the "tendency" to be great "performance" of
    perfection, so this is why it can be morality that oppresses people,
    so we can then say that morality of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is
    the not correct morality, since here again you are noticing that
    Democracy is a tool that permit to avoid such oppression of the morality
    of the master of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, so i invite you to
    read again some of my contributions to philosophy about morality in my following thoughts, but first i invite you to read my following thoughts
    of my philosophy about Utilitrianism so that to understand more that
    morality of the master of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not the correct one:

    More of my philosophy about Democracy and Utilitarianism and more..

    I think i am a wise type of person, and i will also make you understand
    another very important thing, and it is that my redefinition of
    Utilitarianism below make the rule of Utilitarianism "valid" and "true",
    since the rule of Utilitarianism that is maximizing happiness and
    well-being for all affected individuals is also ruled by the future consequences, so since our future consequences must be that we have to
    be a kind of order in a Democracy that permits Democracy to work, so
    then we have to "introduce" like a kind of randomness such by logical
    analogy as randomness of Evolutionary algorithms in artificial
    intelligence, since to not get stuck in a local minimum we have to not
    to "homogenize" in the society the rule of Utilitarianism since there is
    also the weakest members of the society that can not be able to be this maximizing happiness and well-being for all affected individuals, so i
    think that it is like evolutionary algorithms in artificial
    intelligence, so we have to be smart when managing and ruling in
    Democracy. So notice that i have first talked in my below thoughts about
    the definition of Utilitarianism that doesn't take into account my
    redefinition below of Utilitarianism that make the rule of
    Utilitarianism "valid" and "true", and i am after that giving my
    redefinition of Utilitarianism, so read it again:

    More of my philosophy about Utilitarianism and more..

    So as you are noticing that in my previous post i have talked about what
    is the best positive energy that make us a much better world, read it
    below, but am i for Utilitarianism 100% by talking as i am talking about
    this positive energy ? i will answer that you have to know that
    Utilitarianism prescribes actions that maximise happiness and well-being
    for all affected individuals, so i think this "prescribes" means like "recommend", since we are also ruled by Democracy that makes the rule
    of Utilitarianism compatible with Democracy, so this prescribes is not dictatorship, and this maximize of Utilitarianism is the best way, and
    you have to also understand my redefinition of Utilitarianism that
    abstract much more correctly, and here is my redefinition of Utilitarianism:

    More of my philosophy about why the definition of Utilitarianism is like
    an IQ test..

    Notice that i think i am smart, since when i just looked rapidly at the definition below of Utilitarianism, i have rapidly discovered a pattern
    with my fluid intelligence and it is that even if the definition
    of Utilitarianism is: That Utilitarianism prescribes actions that
    maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
    i can easily see a pattern with my fluid intelligence since i am
    smart, since the pattern is that Utilitarianism maximises happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
    only the present but also the future, i mean that responability
    is inherent to the definition since the well balancing forces us
    to be responsability in the present or today so that to maximize
    correctly happiness and well being tomorrow or in the future.

    I can give you another IQ test that i have rapidly invented and
    here it is:

    So i will give my example of pattern recognition with my fluid
    intelligence that permits to understand, here it is:

    So if you want to go fast from my country Morocco to another country
    called USA , how will you do it ? or what will you do ?

    It is like my IQ test..

    So if you answer that you need for example to use a fast airplane to go
    fast from Morocco to USA, your answer is a stupid answer, so you need
    the smart answer, so i will answer that the fast airplane too has to be "reliable" and your "health" has too to permit it and the "weather" has
    too to permit it, so now you are clearly noticing that you need to take
    into account many "factors" so that to go fast from Morocco to USA, so
    you are clearly noticing that being smart needs also a good plan.

    More precision of my philosophy about Utilitarianism..

    I invite you to read the following definition of what is Utilitarianism:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

    So as you are noticing, it says that Utilitarianism prescribes actions
    that maximise happiness and well-being for all affected individuals,
    but i think that Utilitarianism is not idiotic since it maximises
    happiness and well-being by well balancing taking into account not
    only the present but also the future.

    And read my following other proverbs that i think are flexible from the
    start and that i have just invented quickly, here they are and read them carefully:

    https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ZyUvFt_nix8


    And here is my contributions of my philosophy about morality:

    More of my philosophy about morality and more..

    I think i am smart, and as you have just noticed i have also just
    invented a proverb that abstract morality, and i invite you to
    read it again, and i invite you to read my below thoughts
    so that you understand more my logical proof of what is morality and
    why it is universal:

    And here is my other new proverb:

    Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or
    process of perfecting"

    Read here:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection


    This is the definition of perfection above that I use below in my
    explanation of my new proverb.


    Here is all my explanation of my new proverb below:


    My new proverb comes to me from the essence of morality that I explained
    to you in my political philosophy that I wrote in English, since in
    morality we are pushed towards the pretty tomorrow because we are aware
    of this pretty perfume that is the perfection that pushes us or
    encourages us to be or allows us to become perfect or greatly perfect.


    Read about it here on my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality:


    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4


    So here is my new proverb:


    "Life is like the pretty perfume that calls us to be a pretty tomorrow!"


    So notice carefully my smart play on words in my new proverb, i think
    it's smart, and you have to know that the future perfection depends on
    the present perfection, so when today we are responsibility to be the
    pretty perfection so that to build the pretty tomorrow, then the pretty perfection of today is part of the pretty tomorrow, and the "pretty
    perfume" in my new proverb is also the today pretty perfection, but you
    have to understand the symbolic which allows us to say that being this
    part of the pretty tomorrow is also like being the pretty tomorrow. It
    is what makes it a smart proverb.

    More of my philosophy about entropy and about how morality is universal..

    I think i am smart, and i am explaining below why morality is universal,
    but as you have just noticed i have just said that so that to say
    that morality is universal, it requires from us to know about the
    requirements such as why to be a global world etc., so there must be a
    level of consciousness, other than that i will make you feel and see
    much more that morality is universal since i am seeing it:

    So take for example the human imperfections or world imperfections,
    i say that it is because we have those imperfections that also we have morality, and those imperfections causes entropy(A state of disorder and disorganization), this is why we have to be more and more perfection so
    that to maintain order and so that to attain perfection of being much
    more perfect or perfect, for example humans are working in there
    everyday life so that to also maintain order or so that to become
    perfection or much more perfection, and maintaining order is also that
    we are perfectioning so that to not to become disorder.

    More of my philosophy about why morality is universal..

    I think i am a smart philosopher, and i will now explain why
    morality is universal:

    So take a look at the thing that we call "time", so you can naively look
    at our everyday life and say that time is not relative, but
    you can like Einstein analyse it and prove that time is relative,
    and morality is the same, so when you naively look at it you will
    think that morality is relative, since you can notice that for example
    there is many countries with many laws and rules, but when you analyse
    it you will notice that the goal of morality that we become perfect or
    much more perfect pushes us forward towards more and more perfection
    since we have to solve our problems such as our many imperfections, it
    is also why morality is "progressive", so then the essence of morality
    become that morality is progressing towards the goal that is that we
    become perfect or much more perfect, so then the other details of
    morality are abstracted, so then those acts of humans perfectioning or perfecting towards a much more perfect world or perfect world and that
    are also codified as morality become that morality is universal, since
    also we can take this essence of morality as the most important thing.

    More of my philosophy about Class struggle of Communism and Marxism and
    more..

    I think i am a wise type of person and i think i am a philosopher, and
    first, i invite you to read my following new thoughts about
    Utilitarianism and more here:

    https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/wgPJkwdGrqc

    And today i will talk about Class struggle of Communism and Marxism,
    so i will first ask a philosophical question of:

    Is Class struggle "valid" and a good thing to have ?

    I will say that there is not one type of Class struggle, because
    we can have "levels" of Class Struggle, such as the Class Struggle of
    Communism and Marxism under Mao Zedong in China, and i think it is
    logically inferred in Marxism from the fact that there is antagonistic contradictions that are contradiction between the Chinese communists and Chinese bourgeoisie and between the imperialist camp and the socialist
    camp, so we can also consider that this antagonistic contradictions also
    comes from the fact that we are genetically predisposed to being smart
    or having a good memory efficiency etc. so this gives much more "chance"
    to those that have this kind of genetical predispositions to become rich
    and successful, so this is why Communism and Marxism says that we have
    to equalize much more between people, so this is why i think it is also
    a kind of competition that gives this kind of Class Struggle, but i will
    say that the fact that we equalize much more between people in a society
    is not good for "diversity" inside the society and it is not good for efficiency, since we have to have a level of diversity that brings
    "resilience" to the organization of a society, and even in economy we
    have to have a level of diversification of economy that brings
    resilience, so this is why i think that the level of Class struggle that
    we have to have doesn't look like archaism of Communism or Marxism,
    since i think we have to have some kind Social Assistance and Social
    Solidarity and we have to have social programs that help
    the weakest members of the society or the poors of the society in a kind
    of way, so we have also to have a level of Class Struggle that is like a competition that ensure that those kind of rights of providing
    some kind of social programs that helps the weakest members and the
    poors of the society are fought for in a civilized way inside such
    places as the congress and in Democracy. Now there is also other
    antagonist contradictions between the government and the people under
    Democracy or the communist regime, and inside two groups or more inside
    a political party or within a communist Party, and i think that we have
    to have civilized ways and manners like by vigorous criticism and self-criticism so that to resolve those kind of antagonist
    contradictions. And of course i have also just invented quickly a
    proverb and a poem so that to make you understand this way of doing, and
    here they are:

    More of my philosophy about my new proverb about Democracy and more..

    As you have just noticed, i have just invented a proverb about
    Democracy, read it below and read all my other proverbs below, and as
    you notice in this new proverb that i am saying:

    "Since the basis of Democracy is to better and better discuss so that to
    bring good sageness and good soundness"

    So this "better and better discuss" means that it is "inherent" to it
    that we have to also be well educated and that it needs Elitism, and as
    you are noticing in my new proverb that i am saying that Democracy needs Elitism that is existence of an elite as a dominating element in a
    system or society such as congressmen and congresswomen of the USA
    congress. So i invite you to read my new proverb and all my following
    thoughts so that to understand:

    Here is my new proverb:

    "The basis of Democracy is not that people have to govern, since it is inferiority of Democracy, since the basis of Democracy is to better and
    better discuss so that to bring good sageness and good soundness, and
    after bringing this good sageness and good soundness, we can govern
    correctly with this good sageness and good soundness, this is why
    Democracy needs Elitism such as the congressmen and congresswomen of the
    USA congress so that to bring good sageness and good soundness."

    And of course you can read my just new poem below that also speaks
    about the basis of Democracy:

    And read my other new proverbs below that i have written quickly..

    Here is my just new poem, and notice that the lightness in
    my new poem means: The state of having a sufficient or considerable
    amount of natural light.


    So here is my new poem:


    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since darkness is also a "mechanism" that brings better lightness

    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since better lightness is not coming just from U.S. state of Kansas

    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since better lightness is also coming from the USA congress

    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since the USA congress is also a place where to better discuss

    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since the better discuss is not loneliness and is not being novice

    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since to better discuss is also like our beautiful princess

    Darkness for me is not madness

    Since the better discuss brings better Sageness and better soundness


    Thank you,
    Amine Moulay Ramdane.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)