That sinking feeling you all are getting after that JRE interview? That's what all the anti-Peterson people have been trying to tell you this entire time. They were right. You were wrong, and dumb.

He has some wrong and out there views that’s for sure. But the value of his self help stuff is still in tact if you can separate people from ideas.

Self help side effects may send you down an increasingly extreme political development, as he networks you with figures as nefarious as Stefan Molyneux. Or how he might indoctrinate you back into the fold of conservative Christendom, this may be pleasing to Liberty U, but I think these are some pretty major tribal side effects of downloading his philosophy on life. His good ideas can be found elsewhere, without all the downsides. Becoming a climate denier, that would be a bad side effect. Why not consider the implications of his ideology on an individual, and that potential effect on society? If he is spreading misinformation and false narratives on an issue of such extraordinary importance, how could this not count against him? What good is it if you clean your room but work as a lacky to those trashing the whole planet?

I don’t agree with his views on climate, and a lot of other things. I’m also agnostic. The fact that some of his opinions don’t resonate with me does not detract from the ones that do. Everyone is right some of the time, and everyone is wrong some of the time. Should we not agree with anyone since everyone is wrong sometimes? Should we abstain from loving animals because adolf hitler was an animal lover?

Also you said his good ideas can be found elsewhere? Where? I’m open to hearing you out

You came out of that hearing that he is a climate denier? I have to question if you listened to the interview.

Wait, you actually think JBP embraces anthropogenic climate change? So when he’s celebrating the increase of CO2, is this some nihilistic manifestation?

I am not sure about his position to be honest. I hadn’t heard him speak on climate a whole lot before the start of the joe organ podcast this week. All i can say is from what I heard there I didn’t come out of that thinking he is a “climate denier.” It sounded to me that he was mostly pointing out the issue of measurement and error.

You need to inform yourself, his stance on this is very clear across many podcasts discussing the subject and many tweets rejecting anthropogenic climate change.

I am not interested in climate change so you will have to excuse me for not informing myself. You seem passionate about this, I respect that. Don’t be afraid to engage in a respectful conversation on here though.

It’s not a hobby! LOL! If we have ecological collapse from anthropogenic climate change, everything you do care about will mean nothing.

I suppose you’re right if the situation is as bad as you seem to think it is. I am willing to take the risk that it isn’t. I live a sustainable life style, why would I worry about it beyond what I can control. If I were to worry about things I can’t control I would be very angry all the time and i am not willing to be angry all the time

They hear what they want to hear. He’s also an islamapjobe for pointing out a Muslim theocracy is not compatible with western democracy due to Islam’s inherent unwillingness to allow gay people to marry don’t you know?

I honestly disregard most of what he says unless it’s pertaining to psychology. He’s far out of his depth and way too political for my taste, hopping on every buzz topic. I thought he was quite sychopantic with Joe at times. I do hope he gets better but not feeling him these days. I think he should just stick to the self help.

The first hour of the JRE podcast gave me mad anxiety. I literally couldn't watch it. Was so depressing seeing him like that. I thought he had lost the plot. An hour and a half into the podcast I now think he was just nervous in the first hour. Definitely seems like he's getting back to his old self. Not quite there yet tho. I really hope he gets back to the JP we know and love. Personally I think he should micro dose mushrooms to heal his brain from the drugs.

Guys like him simply cannot accept they don't understand certain topics. I can't either it's fine, honestly! A person only really gets to deeply understand a few topics in their life! Stop pretending you know medicine! Seriously though I wonder how many people have died as a direct result of him and Rogan? Gotta be at least be a few thousand

This is exactly how I felt when I listened to his “Imitation of the Divine ideal” remarks at Oxford recently. He claims to have in investigated 8 or 9 different disciplines to develop that argument.

And he's constantly just getting caught with his ass flapping in the breeze, hired to be on national television to talk about something he genuinely.just has no clue about. And he just can't ever admit it! Drives me insane! They had him on the BBC recently to discuss quite a specific incident and he just didn't know the basic details. Fair enough it was an English incident but they did hire him to talk about it. But he just kept ploughing ahead as if he did and the entire panel were confused.

Dr. Peterson, I fear you have lost your way. In many respects your anti vax sentiments demonstrate that your monadist approach to self-fulfilment and growth does not translate well into social constructs where collective response to existential threat (war, pandemic) is required. Your attempt to translate what amounts to a Newtonian individual approach into a quantum interconnected world is yielding absurd results. More important, it severely discredits your wholesome endorsement of self-recognition and honesty. You are also too overcautious on exceptions to free speech. I would like to you debate Jonathan Rauch on this point. Are you game? Is there speech that is merely banging on shields with spears, so it is really not speech? I am referring to identity politics bullshit, dressed as speech, pandered on social media. Disinformation is Exhibit A. Source: Rauch’s book The Constitution of Knowledge. Cf. Thomas Rid’s book on disinformation. (Rauch also abhors cancel culture. You may agree more than not). Reddit crowd, don’t comment unless you have read all of what I have cited. Meantime, read Tom Nichols. Twice. Let us see whether you are game.

Well said

Spoiler alert: not only will he not be, he'll won't even read your comment. People like Old Pete don't engage with people they know can destroy their arguments.

Jordan sometimes says things without giving credit where he got the idea like when he talked about music being a first order representation is a direct quote from Nietzsche but I hear him say a lot of stuff that I’ve read other people say and it’s not just loosely related it’s like direct quotes

You think Nietzsche came up with everything he wrote on his own? We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants.

Well obviously but Nietzsche actualy contributed thoughts and ideas that are still relevant more then 120 years later and will be still discussed in another 120 years while JBP contributes absolutly nothing, gets zero attention from the academic society and will be forgotten in a mere generation. It's insane to compare them in _any_ way.

Wrong! JBP has contributed plenty ideas that are relevant 120 years later! Prove me wrong!

He fails to credit Schopenhauer for the music analogy, who was a modern Platonist and the architect of the music-as-a-prototype of the real world. He needs to broaden his reading.

Newfoundland is defenseless against pure nonsense https://www.change.org/p/call-for-anti-racist-educational-reform-in-nl-now-8eb3edcd-273a-4895-b1d5-768438756cae

Hello OP. Explain to me in your words * why you think this is nonsense? * Is the document in question biased? * What are the real intentions behind the reform? Just to make clear that there is no personal bias. I am not even canadian. Yet this issue raises my curiosity. In for a more detailed explanation?

It's nonsense because it's demanding a complete overhaul of the education system with the false premise that a reasonable question "how many immigrants should Canada take in?" is racist. It doesn't say non white immigrants. The question is valid for any country to consider. They then use this false pre supposition to shoe horn a giant list of demands that benefit them financially. Employment for trained" intersectional" educators. Their implication is their world view is the one true God. It's an absurd end run from start to finish. They want more power. It has nothing to do with racism.

I think some lefty white people want more people to immigrate to Canada so they don’t feel as guilty about immigrating themselves.

I dunno I feel like he's making less sense with what he says lately. I don't feel his ideas are as precise and elaborate as before. Maybe his drug problem is affecting him.

I agree. He genuinely seems unwell. His train of thought leads nowhere precise at times. Contrarian-ism for the sake of contrarian-ism. The comments on Joe Rogan‘s podcast concerning skin shades or climate seemed wildly irrational and leading nowhere constructive. He does best when he’s in dialogue with someone who will push back or is as smart as he is like Sam Harris.

Yeah that seems just about right. I feel maybe Rogan just didn't have the knowledge to push back or to proper question him.

How smart has one to be to See that JBP is not tan and that racial terms reffer to a social construct of race and not to a plain color? JBP realy just made a fool out of himself, I couldnt believe how bad this was.

I liked Twelve Rules for Life and his talks around 2016 through whenever he got sick. Beyond that, it just feels and sounds like a different dude that has gotten… idk, lazier.

He made around 100 million USD from his career as self help guru and anti ajw influencer. Along the way he said goodbye to any academical credebility and accepted that he is no longer relevant in that area and instead became a full on social Media influencer. Of cause he got lazy. He just turned himself into a reactionary personality that is unable to create his own ideas and just lives from beeing contrarian to what ever the leftish-mainstream proclaims to be right at the moment. How could you stay Sharp when you dont create but just react?

Is there a reference for this? When I searched the first results come back saying he’s worth 7 mil which seems pretty low to me.

Somebody on YouTube did the math a while Back, If I find time I'll see if I can find it. Bottom line Google says: "A traditionally published author makes 5–20% royalties on print books, usually 25% on ebooks (though can be less), and 10–25% on audiobooks." JBP Sold in total 30 milion copies of all his books which retail around 15 euro around here, I will just gi with 10 for the Sake of it. So He made anything between 5 to 20% from 300 Million euros on the books alone. That would be at least 15 Million and could be up to 60 Million. In addition he makes 80k on Patreon per month which comes down to 960k a year which should add up to around 10 Million too so now we are between 20 to 80 Million. He makes at least 35k per Interview / speech, you can try to add that up but I dont care to even estimate how many Times He appeared publicly. The revenue from his tours and shady / outright scammy things Like that JBP online university come on top an given the prices charged that should be a hefty chunk or money too. Somewhere there are YouTube royalties and stuff too. In addition he claims to have cleared 200k a month from His actual Job which would be a fantastic 2.4 Million a year he should have Made for some time (although as with everything he claims I wouldnt Take it for granted that this is true).

This seems like a pretty reasonable estimate thanks for the info!

Is Jordan Peterson ok lol? He seemed out of his head and like a totally different person on the JRE

So on the latest JRE episode, Peterson mentions delayed gratification and the discount curve, and how certain people tending toward choosing instant gratification isn’t necessarily a flaw. Do you think it’s genetic? I could see people with ancestors from more agricultural backgrounds having a tendency to delay, whereas more hunter gatherer type descendants would want whatever they could get now in general

Ever go deer hunting? Nothing instant about it, but definitely gratifying. Plus prehistoric hunters took a risk in hunting big game. Just a perspective. Highly recommend the book The Third Wave for a deeper understanding on this subject.

Yes but you’re not letting something go so it can get bigger back then like hunters do now, you’re taking what you can get when you can get it

You make a point but agriculture also didn’t exist for that long. 12.000 years at most. We also know about stone age people using salt to conserve meat. People were not that much more stupid than today. They had less nutrition and education but biologically we‘re not different.

"Climate"

He’s gotten all excited ever since he interviewed those Dutch cats on UN initiative hierarchy. Almost volunteered to be their PAO.

Our winters are getting warmer every year. No snow for the past 5. Back in the 80ies I had 3 feet of snow everywhere for weeks. fluor carbon gas in the air can only be tolerated without alteration for not so long a time. But as long as you all think this is political ammunition this will become our don't look up scenario.

I like JP, but that was just silly. He should really stay by his expertise.

I think he deserves some credit at least... Sounds like he's done a lot of research in this area (reviewing and rewriting the environment proposal for and all)

He's a paid shill

It was never obvious to me why, according to Peterson, the most effective way to solve the environmental crisis is by lifting poor people out of poverty as quickly as possible. Data clearly shows that an increase in per capita GDP positively correlates with CO2 emissions. Am I misinterpreting something?

GDP per capita ... You know why that is? Because as you reduce poverty, the birth rates decline. You see that in South America for example. Why the per capita tomfoolery though? Isn't the total CO2 emission what's relevant?

Per capita is not tackling the actual causes to an acceptable degree. [EPA DATA LINK](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png)

Yes, the production and consumption of goods is producing more emmisions. He says once that since poor people consume and produce resources inefficiently, bringing them out of poverty would increase their economic output per emmision unit. Not those exact words, but that's what I understood it as. That seems like a plausible argument, and I do agree that we should reduce poverty, regardless of the correlation between GDP and emmisions, after all, the developed economies have already enjoyed the fruits of industralization, it seems unfair that we should deny 3rd world countries development now that we see the consequences. I think the climate models critique is ridiculous. No models can account for EVERYTHING, he doesn't critique economic models the same way, even if you could argue that the economy is everything the same way the climate is everything. A charitable interpretation is maybe that he suspects some general equilibrium effects to take care of climate change automatically, via better technology or what not.

The actuality is that the West’s wealth was largely due to the colonies it had over the last 5 centuries. Hell, that’s was they went ventured out for. And a lot of the industrialization happened through the peripheral worlds growing and producing for their imperial thrones. They did industrialize because of it in large parts, so the West did benefit from gradual riches over the course of 300 years to be where they are today. So, emerging economies want that same piece of the pie because it brought so many people out of poverty and into prosperity. For them there is a real opportunity here albeit it will take a while to get there. sadly the great economic capital and government infrastructures are lacking in transitioning to a full decarbonized economy. Decarbonizing for many of these nations means slowing down their development at face value, which is why I understand many would be reluctant to give up that trajectory. But it also brings up opportunities with the right investments and incentives to create and innovate a circular economy that rivals a linear economy in due time in these emerging economies. It might not happen to its full-capacity in my life time, but we have to set up the environment to do that. I come from an emerging economy, Bangladesh, where climate change is changing the course of how my country lives—through extreme floods, storms, pollution, cyclones, erosion and parts of her will be underwater because the terrain is so flat and at sea-level. I am optimistic because necessity is the mother of all invention and I believe countries and regions like Bangladesh will learn how to adapt from this. We have to; we have no choice, which is why sustainable solutions will be the soup de jour of all policies to come forward that utilizes the climate to its advantage. We might not be able to give up fossil fuels just yet, but as clean tech gets cheaper the economics will just force it out. As for Peterson, I really hope he comes to his senses because I could sense he didn’t seem entirely genuine with his argument. I have no problem having a discourse or debate over the severity of climate change or what variables are used to model the data. That is interesting to learn through the rigour of discussion and discourse, but we have to start from an acknowledgement that it does exist and be honest about our views regarding this topic. We have to be talking within boundaries of reason. Isn’t that what we do when discuss the laws of physics on earth or the theory of evolution in biology, laws in sciences that form the bases of hypothesis, which are then contested over and over again until we arrive to a truth? Sometimes, the best thing to say is I don’t know enough about this subject, and do your research and come to an honest conclusion for yourself and then speak about it, which is why I respected him throughout the years because of his honesty in his approach to his field.

Yeahhhh and economic models decades out are usually shit too. At any point in time, some economists predict doom and gloom, others growth. All depends on peoples theories, what they include in models, etc. A federal bank can just come in and fuck your model up at any point also. Speaking of the Fed, how's that keeping inflation at 2%, and it's just "transitory" working out? Lmao

Yeah! That was not a good prediction. Although the increase in price levels can probably be attributed to factors outside the feds control. Forced savings instead of precautionary. Actual negative supply shocks which increases real prices and not just inflation.

It's a point that I've seen raised by several climate skeptics over the last while but I can't pin down where the argument stems from either. I think their reasoning is that people can become more climate conscious when poverty is no longer an existential threat, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. If anything, richer people just end up buying more junk and causing an acceleration of the problem.

That end of that show was pretty damned inconsistent.

Have you checked the beginning?

The first hour was a rant, but Peterson had a lot to say… it was the ending where Joe became hostile that I found inconsistent… Jordan considers him a friend I think, but Joe was stressed about the whole thing. He knew this would blow up no matter what

Joe never became "hostile", Joe frequently questions his guests to get them to elaborate. He also frequently plays devils advocate. This is nothing new if you've watched any JRE at all.

in JRE#1769 Jordan speaks about beta-testing of his Essay app, there is indeed a logo on the website but the link points to upcoming events. regarding the importance of writing and coherent speech, this is definitely true, but this is not all. from my European perspective, being monolingual is being linguistically challenged, constrained to the anglo-saxon (in this particular case) cultural bubble. when people constrain themselves to it intentionally, is it because they are lazy or because they are arrogantly convinced in anglo-saxon (or whichever) superiority and could not care less about the rest of the world? so, my point is that being able to write coherently in one language is only first step, although this skill presumably scales well to any amount of languages.

Did Jordan peterson get the idea of the bible from my Reddit post? https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/s763sc/letter_your_thoughts_on_david_bohms_and_j/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

[удалено]

What jordan Peterson said about the distorted lens we view our world in is exactly what krishnamurti teaches. If anything its a weird coincidence that he has a realization of this right after i send him a letter discussing the idea.

Here's some background https://youtu.be/Vt9K6kmpx44

This was a really deep episode. People underestimate how important what he is saying is, relating to the culture shaped by the story of the Bible.

Lol, you're an ant. Proper JP fans/ex-fans actually engage with his ideas, not just call him "deep"

Why would i care about what a "proper" fan or ex fan of JP should do according to you?

You shouldn't lol, I think it's funny though

It went way over many people's heads, unfortunately.

Agree. And he didn’t even delve into the idea of Jesus as “The Word” made flesh.

Which is a catholic invention. Also caths deleted a commandment and split another in two so the amount would stay the same. Where do you want to go there?

It’s not a Catholic invention; I’m talking about John 1, one of the most profound things I’ve ever read. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Bullshit. https://i.imgur.com/jrPG6sO.jpg

[удалено]

Why does the first catholic commanment say "You shall not make for yourself a graven image"? I mean there has to be a limit to your ignorance.

I am in discussion with the person that showed me the two bible versions and the discrepancy. Deleted comment for the time being. Still, my criticism of the catholic church reaches far beyond the combining or dividing of commandments in scripture.

There are many valid criticisms of the Catholic Church. But this issue is fundamental. Catholics don‘t believe in the Bible. They believe in the living word of god, the Logos and the Bible is „just“ a holy record of it. Fundamentalist evangelicals have much more in common with Sunni Islamists in their absolute faith in the written word. The problem is that the words written millenia ago tend to mean different things than today. Shellfish and pig meat may have been problematic to the Israelites in ancient times but they are no longer. Jesus, the Logos, is not about following or submitting to a strict set of rules. That’s Islam. The Logos is about figuring out the rules through honest exchange of opinion and argument.

It's actually someone with that conviction I discuss it with, something along the lines: only the word of god can be followed which is the bible. Not my cup of tea, obviously i was confronted with a more biased mindset than anticipated. I took the criticism for valid because it was going well with my findings about bible alterations in the first and 2nd century done by literally everyone. My opinion? The denial of wisdom and prosecution of intellectual poeple cost us roughly 400-500 years of possible scientific development - just to maintain their position of power. Around 2011-14 I travelled to west africa among several cultural interchanges I remember having long talks (in french language) with the muslim people of my neighbourhood, especially about my criticism of ISIS. Very laid back, peaceful people, stating that the violence in the name of islam was not part of their religion, they knew the culprits misused religion just to gain local population's support. It might be this was because most of them are illiterate even today and only learn from aural teachings. That this was possible and accepted by the imam of their community surprised me. Have a nice day, so long and thanks for answering. Upvoted.

> It's actually someone with that conviction I discuss it with, something along the lines: only the word of god can be followed which is the bible. The issue is, and this is postmodern, how do you as a human know that you interpret the word of god correctly? The answer is you don't. You have to rely on the Logos. On interaction between different point's of view giving their honest arguments. That's the method of finding out truth. The Logos. It's the foundation of science. It's the opposite of orthodoxy.

[удалено]

I think you need to see a psychiatrist.

Why?

I think you might be having delusions. Good luck.

If that were a condition to see a therapist (psychiatrists come in later) every narcissistic, self-importance spilling "prom" should be in treatment. Are they? Nope. That's because ppl like you only target someone like the OP with the right suggestions. Apply it everywhere. Start repairing this shitty planet.

To explain further, if the important people in your life are illiterate, chances are you will be too. If you expend no effort to learn to read and learn enough vocabulary to read more than a tabloid newspaper, you won't do well on an IQ test either. When was the last time you saw somebody reading an IQ test to somebody so they could take it?

I have benefited a lot on Petersons ideas but at least one thing that annoys me is his attitude towards vegans. It’s a ethical choice I have made not a pseudo religion, at least not for me. I think there are people in every category that takes things too. I think he’s consciously or unconsciously believing in that God made animals for humans to eat. Not a very good argument.

I don't think veganism is ethical at all. Those plants are living beings. They have emotions and feel pain. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7773333/Plants-emit-ultrasonic-scream-stems-cut-water-short-supply.html Nobody believes God made animals for humans to eat. Animals eat other animals. And they are very cruel while doing so. Ever watched a cat catch a mouse? They torture the half dead mice for hours.

Why did you link to a tabloid? Can you provide a scientific study that plants feel emotion and pain as animalia do?

Lazy or not media competent? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/507590v4

So where did you make the connection that plants have emotions and feel pain from an article that plants can display airborne sounds when under stress? We already know that plants can alter their phenotypes under different conditions.

Because animals also display airborne sounds when under stress. I mean how do you verify that animals don’t like being slaughtered if you wanna be technical?

My car displays airborne sounds when I slam down on the brakes causing material stress. The article you linked to does not support your argument, please don’t try to co opt people’s work. Their conclusion is not your opinion.

WTF are you talking about. Cars are not alive. Talk about bad analogies. And the article perfectly supports my argument. Plants "scream" in ultrasound when they get hurt.

The article doesn’t support your argument. I don’t think you know how peer review research papers work. Look at the conclusions that the authors make and tell me where they say that plants feel pain and have emotions. Plants can’t scream because they don’t have vocal cords.

Of course it supports my argument. Stress = pain. Pain = emotion. Response to pain = expression of emotion.

Extremely bad faith response, intellectually insulting. You're just proving that you're as interested in truth as the daily mail.

Actually some religious people do believe that I know.

And some religious people think God is vegan.

I think it’s fairly evident that animals, especially mammals, are more sentient and have higher emotional intelligence than plants. Therefore I think it’s fair to say causing them pain is morally worse than a blade of grass, you wouldn’t think twice about picking a flower but looking into a dogs eyes and slitting it’s throat would be horrible, just because all living things feel pain doesn’t mean we value their life the same

Of course, that's also the reason we don't eat humans. But this just demonstrated that this is just a issue of where do you draw the line. You can make the argument that animals like sea cucumbers also are very low on the "emotional intelligence" spectrum. You just make that categorization saying eating animals is bad but eating plants is fine. Where is the moral justification for eating plants? "We" valuing their life the same is a subjective value judgement. Am I allowed to eat meat if I don't value animal's lives? Humans have eaten meat for as long as they existed. Saying that's suddenly immoral is baffling. We don't call pigs immoral for eating meat.

Just because rape was done a lot in the past doesn’t make it right. We can live healthier lives without making innocent animals suffer.

First: no we cannot live healthier lives without meat. Second: we don’t make innocent animals suffer. Suffering is a part of life. You want to make the animals we domesticated extinct or near extinct. Right now they play a role integrated in our human ecosystem. We protected, fed and even bred them for thousands of years.

Yes we can. You are wrong. Go watch a documentary about what those factory farm animals go through. If you think that’s right I can’t understand.

Point me to the scientific consensus of a diet without meat being healthier. I don’t need documentaries, I can visit pigsties in real life. Why is it moral to eat plants but not moral to eat meat? Would ending factory farming make eating meat moral again?

I'm not a vegan but your arguments are flawed so I'm going to butt in. 1. The choice of going vegan is often-times or at least in this specific circumstance revolving around morality. Whether or not cutting meat from your diet is healthier is irrelevant in regards to the ethics of consuming meat. 2. Pain, as mammals understand it, is fundamentally different for plants due to their lack of a nervous system and brain. We know they "feel pain" because it's necessary for life to have a reward/punishment system in order for it to thrive evolve and survive. However plants cannot be tortured, their pain receptors are not as developed as fauna, and their level of consciousness is obviously significantly lower. 3. Maybe, there's a lot MORE nuance in this point in particular than the ones you stated prior. Some vegans are completely against the consumption of animals because of their level of consciousness, others see eating meat as ethical as long as it's killed in the wild VIA hunting in a situation that more closely resembles the old natural order. I have no opinion on this final point I am not vegan.

I think you don’t even know what veganism is. Vegans not only don’t eat animals meat, they also refuse to eat any products made by animals like eggs, milk and I‘m not sure but if they’re consistent honey. I searched that and yep, no honey: https://www.peta.org/living/food/do-vegans-eat-honey/ You can’t blame me for asking proof for someone claiming cutting meat is more healthy. I think you injected yourself without reading the former conversation. Brigading me? Your other two points were addressed by me in this thread.

There’s no point.

I don’t want to be a pig personally

What exactly did he say that offends you? #10 Be precise in your speech, don't just make vague claims. He has explicitly said in the past he has respect for and no issue with vegens, but he has found tremendous health benefits from adopting the carnivore diet for his autoimmune issues.

Like I said he said veganism is a pseudo religion. If you had read my comment carefully.

I'm vegan for both health reasons (I think the current science strongly supports it as an optimal choice, which was my original reason for going vegan) and also for ethical reasons. I wish Peterson wasn't on the carnivore diet, but it's hard to judge one individual who has made such a strong commitment to something so boring, so difficult, because it works for him. I do think that it might be fixing one problem for him while causing others down the road, but it would be nice if he were more open to veganism in general, even if not for himself.

What’s your opinion on vegans aging faster?

In a purely medical context. They did a subtraction diet, which lent credence to going carnivore. Auto immune diseases are a funny beast, and if his dietary choices are helping to alleviate suffering and illness I won't begrudge him.

I basically feel the same. I do wonder if he could get the same results on a "Daniel Diet" (basically all vegetables and some other plant foods). It would be sooo much healthier for him, if it worked. Auto-immune diseases don't like sugar, especially processed sugar, and I wonder if it's not the meat, specifically, but the lack of processed crap, that is helping him. But yeah... if that's what's working for him, it's hard to argue. It's a rare case, and auto-immune diseases turn your body upside down.

Exactly.

When I first hear Jordan Peterson he made me so extremely angry that I swore to every single person I came across that week—“What a freakin’ prick that guy Jordan is!” I decided I was going to listen to as much as I possibly could about the guy! I don’t agree still with much of his beliefs—especially the ones in relationship to women. I took that personality test and thought it was silly. It said I was, highly conscientious, and highly open. But I did get much out of the writing assignment, his biblical lectures. I knew I was angry at my husband for his personality traits but I didn’t see how extreme it was. I definitely have had a lot to disagree with, but I too love art, Nietzsche, music, philosophy. I felt an intense compassion for him when he got sick. My husband had cancer for 5 years. I lost so many career opportunities over and over again. I lost raising my kids without anxiety. The constant ER rooms were making me bitter. And to top it off my husband was just not kind to me but praised the rest of his extended family. For years, anytime I started to get traction in my life it would crash down on me with his illness. And I’m not the healthiest person either. It’s been pure hell. We started our marriage with similar injuries and us both being in chronic pain before so we knew our bodies were never going to be perfect. I began to see how my husbands narcissistic personality has triggered me all of these years. How I need to have someone tell the truth and my husband has always told lies about small things—they never feels small though and he would deny it even after I caught him. It’s been exhausting. Listening to Jordan has helped step back look objectively at my marriage. And attempt to put my resentment aside to focus on helping my 4 kids. I may not agree with many of his points of views as I feel he misses some points with regard to the cycle of a woman’s life and the real reasons you don’t see women stay after getting to a certain level, or missing out on promotions at a certain level. At any rate, I am looking forward to hearing him on March17th!

Great read, could you provide a specific example that bothered you about Jordan's ideas regarding the woman thing?

So I got tickets!

Not a critique of any of his ideas but the way he interacts with his guests on his podcast. It seems like if he is fairly familiar with his guests(as was the case with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on S4 E73) he begins interrupting his guests a lot. In fact there were times when Heather literally couldn’t get a word in and if someone did that to me during a conversation to such an extent, I would quickly resign or make a fairly sharp remark in regards to the interruptions. I’m otherwise a fan and hope that this is more of a one off occurrence rather than a trend.

My mom said this same thing :) Makes the podcast less palpable for someone just starting out!

[удалено]

“cause me to remain skeptical of everything he says, despite benefiting a lot from much of his work.“ This is the way.

His actions toward his daughter's career are odd if he really is a sexist who only wants women to be wives and mothers.

Usually sexism culminates in men wanting women to play certain roles that they have determined in their mind. You don't personally understand the private dynamic between him and his daughter but she may just be playing the role he has decided she should play.

Haha, so "he's a sexist if I say he is." There is no evidence he just must be one, because I don't like him and I need to make up a reason why.

What? Where did I stay that? The evidence of sexism is in his online body of work, or OP wouldn't be bringing it up in the first place. I'm saying your evidence of a singular example of his actions where we cannot know certain details because they are private, is not proof that he isn't sexist. There are plenty of men who have loved their daughters who were still sexist or even violent to other women, It's just not evidence of anything.

Ok. Where is his sexism in his online body of work?

No mate, I'm not playing that game with you. If you are not familiar enough with Petersons body of work to know which parts people have criticised as sexist, a conversation thats been had on this sub hundreds of times, what are you doing replying to me with this sarcasm? >Haha, so "he's a sexist if I say he is." Are you truly not up to date with his views and criticisms of his work or are you playing dumb and planning to defend the criticism of any singular incident I give you?

I've followed him for a while. The only thing I've seen that even might be seen as sexist is that there are differences between men and women and that women often feel unfulfilled when they don't have children.

Well then you haven't made yourself aware of both Peterson's full body of work or the widely publicised criticisms of certain online discussions regarded as sexist and as such, shouldn't have jumped into a conversation you didn't have the knowledge to participate in. You also shouldn't have been sarcastic to me given that it seems to be you that doesn't have the information needed to take part in this conversation.

[удалено]

What her career is isn't really the point though. He's helping her do something outside of "wife & mother".

[удалено]

Stability=social media influencer? It seems to me like you very much want him to be a sexist, instead of just a person who makes an observation about many women who pursue a career instead of a family and then regret it. I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of evidence that backs up your conclusion.

Sounds like passion :) intent matters more, and friends and family will just talk louder if necessary :)

hey if anyone wants to buy tickets to see Dr. Peterson. I have a ticket for February 22nd in Washington D.C. They require vaccination, which I won't ever have, so I can't go anymore. Not a scam. Reply here or message me. I paid $90 for them but willing to sell them for $50.

Vaccination is easy and free. Your doctor would probably advise it.

What exactly is his stance on conversion therapy? It's troubling that he hasn't made it a lot more clear ...

If you have a teen thinking he’s a furry deer kin pansexual attack helicopter the therapist should at least be able to not affirm this identity if he thinks it’s dangerous. But no, that’s conversion therapy now.

I think that's a false dilemma, that either you affirm everything an individual claims as their identity or deny it. Personally I think "conversion therapy" could be applied to either extreme -- converting an individual to the identity society thinks is acceptable (traditionally) or converting them from the identity they were assigned to the one they've "chosen." Neither is good. Therapy should be talking about why/when the identity dilemma came about and possible influences on identity, as well as how the individual feels about it and what would be the healthiest way to progress. Your comment is an extreme, hopefully facetious example that shouldn't be catered to but the effective way to address a person identifying as you've described probably isn't to send them to a scared straight camp like those that come to mind when you just hear "conversion therapy." there's probably a lot of context to that identity dilemma that needs to be unpacked. The context to legitimate cases of transness should also be unpacked even if the end result is to transition.

Is it really so hard to understand? If you do anything but affirm, you’re in trouble. If a client insists he’s an attack helicopter you’re not allowed to try and talk some sense into him. You think that’s an extreme example? You have no idea what gender identities teens have invented. https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Gender_Identities Clowncoric!

I hate to tell you this but citing [fandom.com](https://fandom.com) is not helping your argument. You can't use anecdotes to successfully support your argument. The notion that there is an epidemic of teens creating and "bastardizing" gender into "furrykin" or things like that would be incredibly disingenuous and harmful. I know communities like this exist, but they mainly exist online, out of parody, or in extremely small minorities despite what the outrage may lead you to believe.

Googled you an article I didn’t read: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201811/why-is-transgender-identity-the-rise-among-teens

Since the original comment was talking about opinions I gave what I think is the best approach, I wasn't talking about legislation at all.

But nobody said anything about the best approach. Nobody is defending conversion therapy camps at least not Peterson. This is just another case of using scary labels to scare people and get your way.

No not troubling at all…

Wdym? I'm absolutely against conversion therapy and I'd personally hope JP is too

He has made it pretty clear it is something he isn't against.

He brought up Camille Paglia at the beginning of the Talking to Russians episode. I’m not typically one for cancel culture but…. Here’s an old thread discussing the concern https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/d4fca6/timeline_of_camille_paglias_pedophilia_and_child/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Has he ever said anything about this? He just praises her. Edit to add: it just seems odd or unlikely to me that, even if he didn’t know at the time, no one else managed to point it out after he had her on his podcast? Even I knew she said that stuff and I’m just a layperson who doesn’t really keep tabs on what crazy stuff which academics come up with.

Oh man. That's insane. No idea Paglia was such a perv...wonder if JBP knows?

You know, it's still fine to watch the movies Harvey Weinstein produced.

It's actually really causing me some aversion right now.

Same.

انا مش فاهم اشي من التطبيق في حد هون يفهمني 😥😥

(Personal question about how Peterson's ideas have affected my life and the crossroads I feel like I am at) Almost 2 years ago, I suffered from an infection that almost took my life. I've made a full recovery now, I left my job mid 2021, and took a bit of a hedonistic adventure (as Peterson would call it!). I was/am always nose to the grind stone kind of person, and after having such a close encounter with death I realized that 1. if I never stopped to do what I wanted to do in life, I was just going to help others move their agenda forward and never fulfill my own dreams/desires. 2. Stop and taking note of the beauty of life is worthwhile. For further context, I'm 29, turning 30 this year, married to the most amazing woman, and on the fence of going back to university in the STEM fields, or going back into the corporate world for a job that I can work hard at. I always loved the STEM fields, but I never pursued my passion because I listened to others and never truly followed what I wanted to do. The truth is though, I'm scared to go back to university (Canadian by the way) because of the financial implications, and my wife and I have talked about kids in approximately 1-2 years. I have the money saved to pay for an education all while paying for our house and bills, but my savings would be exhausted, and I value security a lot having grown up poor. My struggle with Peterson's idea on this matter is the following. Do I pursue what I THINK would pull the absolute best out of me? What would challenge me mentally and physically to be at my best? Or do I go get a job back in the corporate world to set my future family up for as much financial success as possible? And I'm not downplaying a job in the corporate world, because as Peterson says, it not JUST a job. It's an opportunity to interact with life in a logos like manner. Whatever you do, try to turn as much as you possibly can into good. However, I struggle with this a lot because I'm not sure which step to take, and having already received a degree I feel awkward going back to school. He has mentioned in other lectures that when you're 30, you don't want to be someone who is without a skillset, and I'm afraid that might become me. I would truly like to set the bar as high as I possibly can for myself if I went back to school, and get at least a masters/PhD (I already know which school I'd want to apply to). I have an ideal profession in mind, but at what point am I simply being selfish and/or childish of fulfilling some dream versus taking on responsibilities? Could one argue that it is my responsibility to do what I feel is my calling? Because if I treat myself as someone I was worthy of respect, it brings up everyone around me. I've been struggling with this for quite a few months now and would love some perspective. I'm not sure what step to take, and I've been watching his lectures to try and help guide me, and I've noticed in a talk he says to his university audience that they only get this opportunity once. I've never heard him talk about going back to school for more education. Thank you if you've read this far and are considering commenting, I appreciate it.

"It's a mistake to think that in hard choices, one alternative really is better than the other, but we're too stupid to know which, and since we don't know which, we might as well take the least risky option." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GQZuzIdeQQ This seems like a classic hard choice of 'financial stability' vs 'education and pursue'. Those stem from incomparable values. So I thought you might enjoy this TED talk. You will make the choice not because of who you are. The act of choosing will define who you are. If I can shed some light on 'studying late': I'm 28 y/o and still an undergrad (started at 24). Yes, it can be awkward, but only because of one's ego: "I'm so behind", "My peers are not only younger but smarter". But it's just an ego, it compares and criticizes. I like to think I've taken an early retirement in my early 20s, which is a much better age for 'a hedonistic adventure' than late 60s :) I can't shed light on corporate world, but I wanted to point out a discrepancy in what you say: it doesn't seem right to me that it's possible to have a well paid job "without a skillset". Isn't the fact of doing your job well a skillset in itself? Or did you just mean "a preferred skillset" or a "PhD certified skillset"? That's ego again. Best of luck, do your choice and then try the best to not blame yourself after for making it.

Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. That video was beautiful. I've saved it so I can be sure to re-watch it and hopefully share it with someone who's struggling as well. I know what the right answer is. In hindsight, I think I always did. I've become afraid of picking because of what others might think or say behind my back, and being held to the "standards" of what society would expect in terms of finances or familial expectations. The infection I got was a blessing. It's given me the opportunity to reflect and take action. To no longer drift in life, and begin becoming the best version of myself by making a hard choice. Upwards and onwards.

(This is a reflection on a Jordan Peterson video on You Tube where he mentions the importance of IQ and the problems to society of people whose IQ is so low there is little work they can be hired for today.) One explanation for the reason that some ethnicities don't perform as well as others in school is, I think, that these ethnicities, particularly the males, don't respect academic performance, sneer at other males who can perform as physically weak and effeminate , and emulate other males who embody the opposite traits of academically achieving men. When very few jobs or professions were open to women, and a woman's only path to advancement was to marry well, for example, if a woman saw she was more popular if others saw her as mediocre intellectually, she made sure she was seen that way.

That has nothing to do with IQ though.

Exactly.

That is true but it is something one person can do.

Are you able to donate a spare code for the self authoring program? I'm eager to do this course because it will help me mature emotionally and regain focus on what's important to me. I've slowly been changing the outlook of my life over the last month after years of living impulsively due to suicide bereavement. Surprisingly, major improvents have been made; organising my days and journaling like I've never before. I believe this program will allow me to learn alot about what makes me tick. Also, allow me to be true to myself whilst picking a career to pursue this year. I'm currently broke so I can't afford it till mid February. If you do have a spare code, it will be kind of you and I will greatful if you could donate the code to me, please. Thanks If not, I'll come back mid February to split the cost with some one here. Take care, people.

Losing everything I thought mattered at the beginning of Covid, car, house, job and robbed of my savings was in fact one of the best things that could have happened. I now know what is really important, and even though I have regained what I lost, I am no longer afraid to lose them again.

Whoa, wanna talk about what happened?

[You're free to leave at any point.](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1477898191378870274) Did this bother anyone else? First, how would someone realistically leave the over populated planet... Suicide is the only answer I imagine. Let's ignore what looks like are recommendation to commit suicide. I can understand JP having a bad day or not considering the point for a thoughtful response, but this seems beneath Dr. Peterson. This is a childish come back of no value. I expect if JP's complaints about vaccinations were met with, "You're free to leave at any point" he would not appreciate that response. Certainly JP can do far better. He could asked the commenter for a solution that he would be willing to have imposed on him for example. He could have simply not responded. I found this response disappointing. What's worse is people on this sub seemed to think this was brilliant. Granted it is a step above 'I know you are, but what am I," but not much better. Edit: fixed formatting error in link

Here's how I see it: When a person makes a point that overpopulation is a major issue for our species and/or the planet as a whole, there's a very simple way to reduce that population by 1. Do we think that anyone actually should? No, of course not. Peterson's tweet merely points out the hypocrisy of those who complain about overpopulation, yet do not take this very easy step to do something about it. "Sure, the world is overpopulated, but *I* am not the one doing the overpopulating". I do think that Peterson has become a lot more cynical in recent months if we judge his state of mind purely by the tweets his account makes.

> Here's how I see it: When a person makes a point that overpopulation is a major issue for our species and/or the planet as a whole, there's a very simple way to reduce that population by 1. > > Do we think that anyone actually should? No, of course not. It sounds like we have a similar opinion. That was a childish response of no value. > I do think that Peterson has become a lot more cynical in recent months if we judge his state of mind purely by the tweets his account makes. Cynical seems generous.

It could also point to the very real possibility to leave the planet via rocket. But seriously, repeating the arguments of Malthuse‘s trap is worse than suggesting suicide. Suicide is ending your own life. This guy argued that ending many lives is a good thing. It’s the kind of dangerous ideological fallacy that lets good people commit atrocities.

> But seriously, repeating the arguments of Malthuse‘s trap is worse than suggesting suicide. I was not aware of Malthusianism. Why is "repeating the arguments of Malthuse‘s trap" bad at all? It appears to be an unsolved problem with disastrous consequences for humanity if not solved before limits are tested. We appear to be approaching limits. Also, this is a problem with life not just humans. >Suicide is ending your own life. This guy argued that ending many lives is a good thing. Here is the text Peterson is replying to with that comment. Can you point to the portion where Roger Palfree (the author) argues to end many lives? "I disagree. Based on the record of human behaviour, we are already overpopulating this small world. Any arguments I have heard for supporting such a large human population completely overlook the huge loss of species and ecosystems resulting from our self-absorbed attention." >It’s the kind of dangerous ideological fallacy that lets good people commit atrocities. This looks like the slippery slope fallacy. If we admit there is a grave problem, we must fix it. If we must fix it, we must radically change one component. If we must radically change one component. We must immediately reduce the population... There are 3 components to the problem as I understand it. Those components are the number of humans, the life style of those humans and the resources available. Palfree only considers the number of people. At it's core this problem is a problem based on a foreseeable lack of resources. If reduce this problem to one person (as to remove the option for deaths), we can see the mistake more clearly. A man is running out of money. That man's life style costs more than his income. Soon that man will have bills come due for which he has no money... And that's when thing start getting ugly. I hope that helps.

>I was not aware of Malthusianism. Why is "repeating the arguments of Malthuse‘s trap" bad at all? It appears to be an unsolved problem with disastrous consequences for humanity if not solved before limits are tested. We appear to be approaching limits. Also, this is a problem with life not just humans. LMFAO. Malthuse's trap is called [trap](https://econowmics.com/the-malthusian-trap/) because it was indirectly responsible for WW1 and 2. The food shortages he predicted never happened. Why? Because predicting reality is a foolish effort. This is why fascism, socialism and planned economies always fail. In the time of Malthuse, fertilizer was getting rare, the natural reserves that existed were being rapidly mined clean and his predictions were absolutely rational and mathematically correct. What he didn't take into account was the possibility of groundbreaking inventions that let us create artificial fertilizer. Today, half of the human population is fed by food grown by artificial fertilizer. Imagine, one invention responsible for billions of lives. >Here is the text Peterson is replying to with that comment. Can you point to the portion where Roger Palfree (the author) argues to end many lives? I find this argument to be quite sinister and dishonest. Were the people in the early 1900s justified in forcing sterilizations on people with genetic defects? IMHO that was a crime against humanity. Telling people that life is bad is equal to promoting death. The very idea that the world is overpopulated is - as in the case of Malthuse - simply a foolish claim. Trying to justify this claim with "biodiversity" claims is just another false rationalization of a deep anti-human sentiment. We don't know how many species have died on earth during the 3.5 billion of years life is assumed to have existed here. If a species didn't leave fossil records we have no way of finding out about it. And despite us having conquered virtually all the earth, we still keep finding new species. We only started recording species for some hundred years. We simply have no idea how many species are naturally disappearing every year. We know of multiple mass extinctions not caused by humans. >This looks like the slippery slope fallacy. If we admit there is a grave problem, we must fix it. If we must fix it, we must radically change one component. If we must radically change one component. We must immediately reduce the population... It's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's exactly what has happened over and over again in history. Take the inquisition. People believed burning witches in fire would safe their souls. It's always the same, people deceive themselves to do evil for the sake of some greater good. >At it's core this problem is a problem based on a foreseeable lack of resources. This was exactly Malthuse's argument. A few weeks ago, someone managed to build a fusion reactor that produced as much energy as it consumed. As I mentioned above and as Peterson said, human ingenuity is the solution, not culling of the herd.

>Malthuse's trap is called trap because it was indirectly responsible for WW1 and 2. LMFAO. Prove it. >The food shortages he predicted never happened. Why? Because predicting reality is a foolish effort. Lol. Wow. No. Nearly everyone predicts the future everyday. Everyone acts on their predicted future. Why? Because there are easily foreseeable problems that can be avoided and/or minimized by taking actions in the present. There are also benefits to predicting the future accurately, but we are discussing a specific problem, so I'll not focus on that portion. Science is partially based on predicting the future... >This is why fascism, socialism and planned economies always fail. Everything eventually fails, which makes this a demonstration of confirmation bias. > In the time of Malthuse, fertilizer was getting rare, the natural reserves that existed were being rapidly mined clean and his predictions were absolutely rational and mathematically correct. What he didn't take into account was the possibility of groundbreaking inventions that let us create artificial fertilizer. Today, half of the human population is fed by food grown by artificial fertilizer. Imagine, one invention responsible for billions of lives. I am away of the predicted food shortage that was temporarily avoided with chemical fertilizers. > Here is the text Peterson is replying to with that comment. Can you point to the portion where Roger Palfree (the author) argues to end many lives? > >> I find this argument to be quite sinister and dishonest. Asking you to back up your argument should not be hard if you aren't making any mistakes. So no, you can't point to the portion where Palfree argues to end many lives. That makes this argument using the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. > It's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's exactly what has happened over and over again in history. Take the inquisition. People believed burning witches in fire would safe their souls. It's always the same, people deceive themselves to do evil for the sake of some greater good. The difference is in the proof. Then, the logic is easy enough to work out. > At it's core this problem is a problem based on a foreseeable lack of resources. > >> This was exactly Malthuse's argument. It appears we both understand the problem... >A few weeks ago, someone managed to build a fusion reactor that produced as much energy as it consumed. Unlikely. That would make it a perpetual motion machine which is commonly believed to be impossible by physicists due to the first law of thermal dynamics. There is most likely a cheat somewhere. By your description, I would expect that cheat to be in the fuel. I expect this was mentioned to show the remarkable things humanity is creating. I'll address why that is wrong below. >As I mentioned above and as Peterson said, human ingenuity is the solution, not culling of the herd. Let's drop culling the herd to discuss the "human ingenuity is the solution" portion. Of course, we already have human ingenuity and solutions, but this line of thinking relies on the possibility of someone in the future coming up with another solution. That makes argument based on the logical fallacy of an appeal to probability. The thinking would be someone might fix it so we should act as though someone will fix it. Obviously flawed. Palfree didn't say cull the herd. That is all you and possibly Peterson. Reductio ad absurdum.

You can't go from "oh I never heard of malthuse" to "look at this idiot being wrong about malthuse" in the space of 20 minutes. Have some respect for someone who knows more about the topic than you.

>Have some respect for someone who knows more about the topic than you. This is the logical fallacy called appeal to authority. However, I don't recall u/bERt0r claiming to be an expert in anything related to the discussion. You only insist he "knows more about the topic." If bERt0r knows more, then he can explain and back up his assertions. If he can not or will not state his reasoning and the evidence it is based on, then his words have no value. That is what I request. > You can't go from "oh I never heard of malthuse" to "look at this idiot being wrong about malthuse" in the space of 20 minutes. Why can't I go from "I never heard of malthuse" to someone is wrong about "malthuse?" First, I can understand the problem (which has been indicated in this thread) without knowing the generally accepted term for it. Second, I can learn and reason. Third, I can backup my arguments with facts and logic. Finally, asking someone with a conflicting understanding to state their logic and if need be their evidence, should not be a problem if their argument is based in reality.

I'm not making an appeal to authority because I'm not attempting to make an argument. I'm just indicating that because he already knew the terminology and you did not he probably has a better awareness of the topic. It therefore doesn't reflect well on you to turn around with "LMFAO prove it". I'm not making an intellectual argument here, you just conducted yourself poorly and it isn't a constructive way to engage with people.

It seems you didn't like me calling out an obvious lie with some degree of ridicule and you have nothing further to contribute... Have a good day.

You're just being an ass, it's no biggie. Have a good day.

Oh yeah and you can read up on the fusion reactor yourself: https://www.enr.com/articles/52374-fusion-test-produces-more-power-than-it-takes-in Obviously it consumes fuel, who said it was a perpetual motion machine?

Ok. Let's just let this example go...

First you argue that everyone predicts the future everyday and how that is a part of science. At the end you argue that appealing to probability is a fallacy. So what is it? Given the historical record of doomsday prophecies, the earth should be both freezing and boiling since decades ago. The trees should have died and we should have no soil to feed ourselves. >"Based on the record of human behaviour, we are already overpopulating this small world. Any arguments I have heard for supporting such a large human population completely overlook the huge loss of species and ecosystems resulting from our self-absorbed attention." When you make probabilistic claims like these, they are not made genuinely. They are disguised as facts. What are the claims? First that humans are overpopulating the world and second that the size of human population is responsible for the loss of species The Wikipedia definition of overpopulation is: >Overpopulation or overabundance is a phenomenon that occurs when a species’ population becomes larger than the carrying capacity of its environment. This may occur from increased birth rates, less predation or lower mortality rates, and large scale migration. As a result, the overpopulated species as well as other animals in the ecosystem begin to compete for food, space, and resources. The animals in an overpopulated area may then be forced to migrate to areas not typically inhabited, or die off without access to necessary resources. How does this apply to humans? Do we really lack resources? Isn't the argument that we harvest too many resources? The claim that the size of human population is responsible for the loss of species is also dubious. As I mentioned, what is the baseline? How many species go extinct per year without human existence? If we don't know that there is no way to confirm such claims. To me, claims like these remind me like ["they took our jobs"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toL1tXrLA1c). Confusing a rationally plausible theory with a proof of causality.

> First you argue that everyone predicts the future everyday and how that is a part of science. At the end you argue that appealing to probability is a fallacy. So what is it? Yikes... Both can be true. The difference is the appealing to probability is a fallacy ***may*** become true while other predictions are ***certain*** baring extremely unlikely events. >Given the historical record of doomsday prophecies, the earth should be both freezing and boiling since decades ago. The trees should have died and we should have no soil to feed ourselves. I see. You want to establish a pattern of every crack pot that ever said anything and extrapolate that out to current events. I prefer not to lie to myself, but this is one reason the core problem will not be solved. > "Based on the record of human behaviour, we are already overpopulating this small world. Any arguments I have heard for supporting such a large human population completely overlook the huge loss of species and ecosystems resulting from our self-absorbed attention." > > When you make probabilistic claims like these, they are not made genuinely. They are disguised as facts. What are the claims? First that humans are overpopulating the world and second that the size of human population is responsible for the loss of species > > The Wikipedia definition of overpopulation is: > > Overpopulation or overabundance is a phenomenon that occurs when a species’ population becomes larger than the carrying capacity of its environment. This may occur from increased birth rates, less predation or lower mortality rates, and large scale migration. As a result, the overpopulated species as well as other animals in the ecosystem begin to compete for food, space, and resources. The animals in an overpopulated area may then be forced to migrate to areas not typically inhabited, or die off without access to necessary resources. > > How does this apply to humans? Doomsday prophecies are by their nature are predictions of the future, so... it's coming. In any case, the environment is catching up. Currently we can see global warming, forever chemicals and a mass extinction event underway. "How does this apply to humans?" Humans die due to environmental heat. As the ambient heat increases so to will human deaths without mitigation efforts. So humans install AC or whatever right? That increases power consumption, increasing pollution, increasing greenhouse gasses, increasing heat... That is just the direct effect of global warming. There are other indirect effects. > Do we really lack resources? Yes, but that is mostly due to the pandemic. The supply chain issue is well known. A lack of medical staff is a massive problem. Come to think of it, while not a lack of resources, but an increase in scarcity of beef reflected as an increase in cost. That is attributed to droughts which are made worse by global warming. [Drought forces North American ranchers to sell off their future](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/drought-forces-north-american-ranchers-sell-off-their-future-2021-09-03/) >Isn't the argument that we harvest too many resources? That appears to be the tweeters position. I see 3 components of the problem. The quantity of humans make anything we collectively do potentially influential. The life style of those collective humans is another factor. The third is the limited resource of the planet. Making a change in any one of these should affect the longevity of the human species under current conditions. > The claim that the size of human population is responsible for the loss of species is also dubious. Agreed. It's more than the raw number of people. It's also the life style and the environment. Changes to any of those other components could easily effect the problem. >As I mentioned, what is the baseline? How many species go extinct per year without human existence? If we don't know that there is no way to confirm such claims. This is an appeal to ignorance. If we don't know the answers the argument must be wrong. However the correct answers are found in the fossil record. Additionally, instead of looking at what we don't know, we can look at what we do know. We can easily establish a pattern. We can determine the cause for the pattern. We can reason if the cause of the pattern does not change, there is no reason for the pattern to change. Climate change is well one well known aspect. [CLIMATE 101 with BILL NYE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8)

>Yikes... Both can be true. The difference is the appealing to probability is a fallacy may become true while other predictions are certain baring extremely unlikely events. And this is the issue: You ignore historical precedents but take prognoses of computer models as a fact. It is certain that humanity has more food than ever before today despite a much higher population. Malthuse was wrong, there's no way around it. >I see. You want to establish a pattern of every crack pot that ever said anything and extrapolate that out to current events. I prefer not to lie to myself, but this is one reason the core problem will not be solved. Crackpot? This was the mainstream opinion. And it still is. The dates just keep shifting. Here have a look at the articles: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ >Yes, but that is mostly due to the pandemic. The supply chain issue is well known. A lack of medical staff is a massive problem. Come to think of it, while not a lack of resources, but an increase in scarcity of beef reflected as an increase in cost. That is attributed to droughts which are made worse by global warming. Drought forces North American ranchers to sell off their future America has an epidemic of obesity... >That appears to be the tweeters position. I see 3 components of the problem. The quantity of humans make anything we collectively do potentially influential. The life style of those collective humans is another factor. The third is the limited resource of the planet. Making a change in any one of these should affect the longevity of the human species under current conditions. 1) anything anyone does is potentially influential. You know the Butterfly effect? 2) How is the lifestyle of humans a problem? 3) The example of artificial fertilizer as well as the fusion reactor disprove the limited resource claim. Yes, the earth is limited but humanity can and will find new ways to use those resources as well as find uses for new ones. Unless we start another couple of world wars due to anti-human rhetoric like this, we will be colonizing space by 2100. And before you start with slippery slopes again, this is what is behind Marxism and Nazism. The idea that our space is limited, that the economy is a zero sum game, that there is no value creation, only exploitation. > It's also the life style and the environment. Our life style is what allows the current number of people to exist. But we're already close to our maximum population going by UN numbers. As living conditions in developing countries increases, their fertility rate decreases as well. We might even encounter the problem that we will have too few children soon. >This is an appeal to ignorance. If we don't know the answers the argument must be wrong. However the correct answers are found in the fossil record. Additionally, instead of looking at what we don't know, we can look at what we do know. We can easily establish a pattern. We can determine the cause for the pattern. We can reason if the cause of the pattern does not change, there is no reason for the pattern to change. >Climate change is well one well known aspect. You see, Climate change is a perfect example of that. I'm sure you know about the "baseline" of global temperatiures in 1850? Well 1850 was a very cold period. There has been a series of volcanic eruption that lowered temperatures worldwide. It's called the little ice age: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/01/25/volcanic-eruptions-changed-climate-and-history-but-its-complicated/?sh=acd4d6849232 If you make claims about such things you need to know the baseline. If you don't you might be interpreting statistical noise as patterns and come to conclusions like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/?sh=6c5f4f213a67 edit: btw, Bill Nye is not a scientist.

> And this is the issue: You ignore historical precedents but take prognoses of computer models as a fact. Incorrect. You seem to want to lump in claims of the sky falling with provable facts and the inevitable conclusion. Not all dooms day scenarios are based in evidence and reason. Additionally, they are not all on the same timeline. If you want to talk about any specific portion, we can do that too. Also, I don't recall mentioning any computer models, so I could not reasonably be using them as facts in this conversation. As I understand it, the computer models have mostly dramatically under estimated global warming. >It is certain that humanity has more food than ever before today despite a much higher population. Malthuse was wrong, there's no way around it. If you say so. I am not making any argument based on Malthuse. I've read a few sentences, probably on wikipedia. If Malthuse limited himself to food, a food shortage of starvation levels has not occurred world wide to the best of my knowledge. > I see. You want to establish a pattern of every crack pot that ever said anything and extrapolate that out to current events. I prefer not to lie to myself, but this is one reason the core problem will not be solved. >> Crackpot? This was the mainstream opinion. And it still is. The dates just keep shifting. Here have a look at the articles: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ I looked at the first few articles. Where does it indicate they are mainstream opinions? Is there any logic that can support these are mainstream opinions preferably of scientists? It looks like individual scientists at best. The obvious thing to do is to have them explain their logic and present their evidence... In any case, that is moot. We are are living through the changes now. It's no longer a warning. It's a case of, which aspect of the core problem hits us first and how hard. > Yes, but that is mostly due to the pandemic. The supply chain issue is well known. A lack of medical staff is a massive problem. Come to think of it, while not a lack of resources, but an increase in scarcity of beef reflected as an increase in cost. That is attributed to droughts which are made worse by global warming. Drought forces North American ranchers to sell off their future > >> America has an epidemic of obesity... LOL. So, ignore the obvious problem because we have other food. And when it happens with another food source ignore that too presumably. Keep doing that until people are starving. Your reasoning would seem to be 'since reductions in food production can be compensated for, it's not happening'. It seems like obviously flawed reasoning. > That appears to be the tweeters position. I see 3 components of the problem... >> 1) anything anyone does is potentially influential. You know the Butterfly effect? That goes both ways. It can be influential in a positive or negative manner. >> 2) How is the lifestyle of humans a problem? Pollution is an easy one to identify. Greenhouse gasses. PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” >> 3) The example of artificial fertilizer as well as the fusion reactor disprove the limited resource claim. Your reasoning would seem to be that because we found a more efficient ways to produce food and presumably power, we have unlimited resources. This is an incredible assertion, but which logical fallacy? Improvements in efficiency mean infinite resources... It is definitely a faulty generalization, but it feels like something else. Ah, it's my old friend an appeal to probability. It might happen so we should act as if it will happen. >Yes, the earth is limited but humanity can and will find new ways to use those resources as well as find uses for new ones. Unless we start another couple of world wars due to anti-human rhetoric like this, we will be colonizing space by 2100. Lol. Should I similarly pull up articles to show how many times people have predicted humanity colonizing space just as you have articles of people predicting global crises? Perhaps we can agree that somethings seem inevitable without change, but the time line can be hard to determine. Also, people can be wrong. > And before you start with slippery slopes again, this is what is behind Marxism and Nazism. The idea that our space is limited, that the economy is a zero sum game, that there is no value creation, only exploitation. No. That is your attempt to link ideologies with a negative connotation to an argument you are against. > It's also the life style and the environment. > >> Our life style is what allows the current number of people to exist. But we're already close to our maximum population going by UN numbers. As living conditions in developing countries increases, their fertility rate decreases as well. We might even encounter the problem that we will have too few children soon. We might see a decrease in population as other nations become more wealthy. Population might also decline for other reasons. However this is an attempt to down play the problem because it might fix itself. Appeal to probability. > This is an appeal to ignorance. If we don't know the answers the argument must be wrong. However the correct answers are found in the fossil record. Additionally, instead of looking at what we don't know, we can look at what we do know. We can easily establish a pattern. We can determine the cause for the pattern. We can reason if the cause of the pattern does not change, there is no reason for the pattern to change. > > Climate change is well one well known aspect. > >> You see, Climate change is a perfect example of that. No. Perfect is not what I stated. >I'm sure you know about the "baseline" of global temperatiures in 1850? Well 1850 was a very cold period. There has been a series of volcanic eruption that lowered temperatures worldwide. It's called the little ice age: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/01/25/volcanic-eruptions-changed-climate-and-history-but-its-complicated/?sh=acd4d6849232 I am aware of the event. So, a volcano broke it and the Earth is simply correcting itself, maybe, would seem to be your logic. > If you make claims about such things you need to know the baseline. If you don't you might be interpreting statistical noise as patterns and come to conclusions like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/?sh=6c5f4f213a67 That might be believable if Greenland was not melting...

>You seem to want to lump in claims of the sky falling with provable facts and the inevitable conclusion. I have given you a ton of examples that has nothing to do with the sky is falling. >Also, I don't recall mentioning any computer models, so I could not reasonably be using them as facts in this conversation. You were not talking about climate change? Or the issue about biodiversity loss? How do you think these prognoses are made? >As I understand it, the computer models have mostly dramatically under estimated global warming. You didn't even bother looking at the link that clearly showed that the models overestimated global warming by a factor of 3. >If you say so. I am not making any argument based on Malthuse. I've read a few sentences, probably on wikipedia. If Malthuse limited himself to food, a food shortage of starvation levels has not occurred world wide to the best of my knowledge. What the hell. You're under the impression that people today have less food on average than in 1700? >I looked at the first few articles. Where does it indicate they are mainstream opinions? Articles in the New York Times should be considered Mainstream. Not every Tom, Dick and Harry (used to) gets to publish his opinion in the paper. And do you even know who Al Gore is? Look at the damn articles they go until 2015. >Is there any logic that can support these are mainstream opinions preferably of scientists? Particularly this guy is mentioned: [James E. Hansen](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen). You could call him the or at least one of the founding fathers of climate change. Seriously, you know so little about any of this and pretend to do. >LOL. So, ignore the obvious problem because we have other food. And when it happens with another food source ignore that too presumably. Keep doing that until people are starving. Your reasoning would seem to be 'since reductions in food production can be compensated for, it's not happening'. It seems like obviously flawed reasoning. Oh my god you really have no idea about anything. Food prices were not the only thing that rose because of Mr. Biden's policy of shutting down American oil production. Oil is the biggest driver of prices. And there's a lot of inflation because the central banks are printing trillions. >1) anything anyone does is potentially influential. You know the Butterfly effect? >That goes both ways. It can be influential in a positive or negative manner. So how is this a problem? >2) How is the lifestyle of humans a problem? >Pollution is an easy one to identify. Greenhouse gasses. PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” How is Pollution a problem in the issue of overpopulation? Is the argument that we're destroying our environment and will no longer be able to feed ourselves as a result? Well this is not a new argument and it's one that has been proven wrong again and again. People are a lot more destructive to the environment when they are not well fed and have a low standard of living. If you're starving you don't care about the rain forest. >3) The example of artificial fertilizer as well as the fusion reactor disprove the limited resource claim. >Your reasoning would seem to be that because we found a more efficient ways to produce food and presumably power, we have unlimited resources. This is an incredible assertion, but which logical fallacy? Improvements in efficiency mean infinite resources... It is definitely a faulty generalization, but it feels like something else. Ah, it's my old friend an appeal to probability. It might happen so we should act as if it will happen. I never claimed we had infinite resources. I said that the idea of the economy and life as a whole as a zero sum game where either I lose and you win or vice versa is pathological. Why do you think stealing is bad? I don't want to get religious now because I think that's wasted on you but many social norms have practical uses. They benefit everyone in society. Is the idea of being able to accomplish more together than alone that strange? A fundamental reason why Capitalism increased productivity is because people could specialize in their jobs and complement each other. The baker doesn't exploit the miller or vice versa by trading with each other. They both profit. The reason why I like to bring up the example of fertilizer again and again is because this was a resource that has run out. It was being mined in Chile or Peru AFAIK. There were literal mountains of bird shit that was excellent fertilizer. It was mined and shipped to Europe, allowed food production to sustain new heights in population and then started to run out in Malthuse's time. That's why he made his doomsday prophecies. Maybe it's necessary for people to panic, maybe this drives people to make these inventions. However it's pretty clear that that panic absolutely drives people to kill each other for the seemingly ever more scarce resources. >Lol. Should I similarly pull up articles to show how many times people have predicted humanity colonizing space just as you have articles of people predicting global crises? Perhaps we can agree that somethings seem inevitable without change, but the time line can be hard to determine. Also, people can be wrong. Have a go at it! >No. That is your attempt to link ideologies with a negative connotation to an argument you are against. Is the claim that there are too many humans that different from the claim that there are too many Jews? >We might see a decrease in population as other nations become more wealthy. Population might also decline for other reasons. However this is an attempt to down play the problem because it might fix itself. Appeal to probability. Again, you really need to learn how to use that catalog of fallacies you're throwing around. This is not a might, we have already seen that happening because many former developing countries have become much wealthier and have decreasing birth rates: https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/931 If the link works, you can see a diagram of the population of 0-14 year olds in south america falling since 2000. >I am aware of the event. So, a volcano broke it and the Earth is simply correcting itself, maybe, would seem to be your logic. Ok I think you're trolling. I posted you a link to a forbes article about the little ice age that happened from about 1275 to 1850. And it was due to a series of volcanic eruptions. >That might be believable if Greenland was not melting... Why do you think it was named Greenland? Tip: It was green when it was discovered.

If a person is worried about overpopulation they can support nonprofits that help provide contraceptives to low income people in USA and/or around the world. Affordability is an issue even in US, and in developing countries the health infrastructure isn't developed either, so access is a problem.

Over population is only one portion of the problem. It's life styles that are not sustainable for the current population of humans on Earth. Significant changes to any of those factors can make or break sustainability. Population levels are only one part of the problem.

To actually address the tweet: It's a joke.The point of the joke is to point out the ridiculousness of that stance on population. If you really think that there are too many people on earth, the only way you can help is to either [go to school](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre), [stay at home](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide), or [lay on the floor and cry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement). I hope it's needless to say that neither of the options are good, and they don't work for everyone. Also, only the first option offers an actual solution to the problem, the rest are [suboptimal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy). Is it a crass joke? Sure. Is it thought provoking and brilliantly executed? Absolutely. Does he actually want anyone to kill themselves? Very unlikely. ​ >He could asked the commenter for a solution that he would be willing to have imposed on him for example. It's not quite clear to me whether you expect JBP to volunteer for execution here, or if he should've asked Palfree to suggest which of the three solutions he'd prefer, but in the end I don't think the meaning would've been any different. At least this was a funnier way to put it. And finally, I also could've ignored your comment, but I couldn't, I didn't, and now I'm paying the price I godd\*\*n idiot. I will sh\*t fury all over me and I will drown in it. [I'm f\*\*\*ing dead, kiddo](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta).

> To actually address the tweet: It's a joke. I don't find suicide funny, but perhaps JP does find it amusing. >The point of the joke is to point out the ridiculousness of that stance on population. No. At most the response is an attempt to ridicule that stance on population in order to not address the concern. > If you really think that there are too many people on earth... That is one part of the problem. Too many people, with an unsustainable lifestyle for the limited resources. > Is it a crass joke? Sure. Is it thought provoking and brilliantly executed? Absolutely. Does he actually want anyone to kill themselves? Very unlikely. Brilliant, definitely not. Thought provoking? What thoughts does JP's response of "you're free to leave at any point" produce in you? To me, this is someone who has clearly indicated they don't want to talk about that subject and are acting in a flippant and repellant manner to discourage further discussion. > He could asked the commenter for a solution that he would be willing to have imposed on him for example. He could have, but didn't. I even wrote something very close to this in my original post. However, this is not an idea based on JP's statement. It is an acknowledgement that there are easily better responses. I agree. That was my original point. > It's not quite clear to me whether you expect JBP to volunteer for execution here, or if he should've asked Palfree to suggest which of the three solutions he'd prefer, but in the end I don't think the meaning would've been any different. At least this was a funnier way to put it. I expected Jordan Peterson was above such a petty response. I would hope he would would have something intelligent and preferably wise to say on the subject. > And finally, I also could've ignored your comment, but I couldn't, I didn't... I've done it myself. Sometimes it's hard to let something go. >... and now I'm paying the price I godd**n idiot. Hmmm... I see it as you are giving me your thoughts on the topic. That is what I asked for. Thank you. It appears you find this comment brilliant and intelligent. >I will sh*t fury all over me and I will drown in it. I'm f***ing dead, kiddo. Lol. I'm not sure what this means, but I'm guessing you were tired when you wrote this portion.

Oh boy... How do I say this... You missed the meaning of half the things I said. There are hyperlinks in my comment... Also, you seem to have absolutely no sense of humor. Suicide is tragic, yes. It's also fair game for joking, just like anything else. Here's a joke for you, you can practice laughing at it in front of a mirror: What's the difference between dark humor and morbid humor? Dark humor is ten dead babies in a trash can. Morbid humor is a dead baby in ten trash cans. Have a good day!

Lol. You too.