6 16

The universe is a dangerous, unforgiving and cares nothing for political correctness.
Be woke if you want! Ignore the universe and its rules at your own peril.
If the human race becomes extinct the universe will not notice.

adriaan23 6 Feb 27

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Mankind's demise will be about as significant as a goldfish expiring in someone's fish tank. According to science the universe will eventually destroy itself. What do I care whether we live another 0 years or 0 million years. Such empathy/consideration would rely on concept that the human race is actually worth saving.

Smith said it best, we are essentially a Virus that has no respect for lower lifeforms. We selectively choose in which context to show compassion and empathy, all relative to our own self-serving needs.

Sometimes I wish we were invaded by a superior race so us humans can feel what it's like to be on the bottom of the food chain. We would be to them, what livestock are to us.

How to serve man? It was a cookbook?


“If the human race becomes extinct the universe will not notice. “

Not IF ...

And the “Human Race” is actually Rushing to End Itself ...


Hello. I kind of understand where you're coming from, and I imagine that your philosophical view is shared by many who are around the same age as you; those who have lived their lives reasonably well, those who are comfortable with what they have now, and those whose focus is on maintaining their status quo rather than making any changes to it. I also imagine that young people find it hard to get their heads around to your view, simply because they are at a different point in life; they are hopeful and ambitious for their futures, just like you once were as a young man. So, maybe your view is a little too nihilistic to a young person who is just about to start their life the way they want it. Perhaps, you can ask your children or grandchildren. What you say may be true, just as everybody will die one day, but I think it's important, especially for young people, to know that we live the best life we can for ourselves and for others.

“ I also imagine that young people find it hard to get their heads around to your view, simply because they are at a different point in life”

I admit to being Strange but ... I figured this one out by the time I was EIGHT ... in Third Grade ...

Life as you say is seen from a personal perspective. Facts however have a habit of not caring about perspective or anything else.
An odd form of "logic" allows a biological male to enter female sports because he says he's a female?
This shows a disregard for facts. Facts will come back to bite you in the rear!
Ignoring facts in a world that has weapons of mass destruction is insane.
Having someone in charge of nuclear weapons who hasn't got a full grip on reality may be not a good idea.
For the first time in human history, we have the ability to wipe ourselves out. Not the time to indulge fantasies as fact.

@adriaan23 I respectfully disagree... There are facts and there are people of different generations, different genders, different heritage. etc., who perceive those facts in different ways. It would be very strange if everyone shared exactly the same perspective about everything. I also believe that throughout the entire human history, we have always had different abilities to destroy ourselves, and we survived every time. I don't agree with wokeism, postmodernism, whatever you call it. I'm hoping that this is just a phase we're going through. I don't believe that this ideology can be materialised because it is so against the human nature. And please try not to patronise young people; being young and therefore being hopeful and ambitious for their futures is not the same as indulging fantasies.


Sounds about right!


Perspective is important; we are not.

Great Video...thanks!
Nothing can save us from ourselves, true enough
...but God can save us all, if we just follow him.


Which of the universe's rule does being woke ignore?

Intelligence. And don't bother replying

All jokes aside... the universe, or the part that matters, the natural environment we evolved in:
That natural world does not care if you are black or white, or if you identify as this or that.
It cares if you follow the rules that led to our evolution and the establishment of all successful cultures and civilisations.
Intelligence, memory, the ability to use those two at the same time, to plan ahead, to learn from all experience and apply them.
This all needs the pursuit of excellence. The use of merit to select. The recognition of hard and effective work. Reward for contribution.

The “woke” ignore all this, and this will only lead to one eventual conclusion.
The collapse of successful civilisation.

Please note, we are NOT referring to worthwhile endeavours of the past, such as equal opportunity for all and making discrimination illegal.
We are talking here of the modern “woke” movement.

But not caring isn't a rule, it's an anthromorification of the universe. It's our assignment of the human concept of caring or not caring to a non-human entity.

As a physicist I'm intimately aware with what rules we've been able to tease out from the universe and I see no correlation or any mention of woke philosophy as violating any of those.

So it's more to the point that it's not the universe's rules that are being broken but societal rules. And as such, as in the example of the past discrimination laws which you support, it is very often the case that societal rules often need challenged and something's broken.

For the record, I too find wokeism to be ridiculous and absurd attimes. But I'm constantly reassessing if that's because I am of an older generation following an older set of societal rules or if it's really reflects a lack of content on their part

I do struggle with the care if you woke and not care if you are not woke concept.
For example “conservatives” tend to care more about their own children than “woke” people (that is my observations and can be challenged).
They also tend to care more for their employees in the long term.
It just depends on your definition or care. That is a significant discussion I don’t want to get into now. Just that if people did not care for each other, successful communities would never arise.

So I don’t completely understand the “care” concept as applicable in this discussion.

To discus where I feel that the “woke” movement is breaking nature’s laws I will only discuss evolution. Although we can also discuss mass balance, but that is more complex.
Individuals in a species is selected to procreate by nature because they are better at dealing with a specific challenge the environment throws at them. There are no special privileges or advantages other than your abilities. Excellence is rewarded. If not enough “good” individuals are found to survive long enough to procreate, the species goes extinct. Now since the challenges the environment throws at a species change all the time, you also need diversity in the species.

Civilisations evolve the same way. If there are not enough good individuals and diversity to adapt, they go under. Also they need diverse people to adapt when needed.
So ending discrimination laws and creating equal opportunities for everyone was a big step forward for western civilisation.

However, now the woke movement wants to do away with excellence, everyone should have the same outcome irrespective of your abilities or decision making. Nowhere in nature does this happen. The stupid/sick/slow antelope gets eaten. That antelope is protected by the herd to a great extent, however if you allow that antelope to be the main gene supplier to the herd, eventually the whole herd becomes stupid/sick/slow and gets wiped out when a new predator arrive .
That is why only the best bucks breed. And it may sound harsh, but that is also what keeps the herd strong and what allows the weaker antelope to survive.

Civilisations are the same.

You have to recognise and reward excellence. And if excellence in some specific area is more prevalent in one group of people than in another group... that is just the way it is. What you do need to do is make sure that everyone gets the same opportunities irrespective of what group they come from because we need that diversity since we don’t know what nature (other civilisations) are going to throw at us.

Woke weakens the west. There is no woke in China, India, Russia etc... and eventually they will overtake Europe/America.
Just like the Germanic tribes eventually overtook the Romans.


However, now the woke movement wants to do away with excellence, everyone should have the same outcome irrespective of your abilities or decision making. Nowhere in nature does this happen.

There is a huge problem in discussing this philosophically for as much as we can't pin down "caring" objectively, we can't pin down" woke" objectively either. This is why I say that it can't be breaking any universal rules for it would require 1) that we identify a rule of the universe and 2) that we have an objective definition of woke that breaks it.

I will however say that within your paradigm, the above rule is not true. The nature of pack animals is filled with examples of the strong taking care of the weak, were the tribe members that don't contribute to the pack still get a portion of the food.

Nor is it true in our society: wheelchair access, for example, means that people with less ability to enter buildings have equal outcomes to those with normal ability to enter buildings. This is very "woke" mentality but one that I don't think many would argue against. Similar to children with down syndrome. Clearly they will always be behind in terms of decision making yet we make accommodations so they can have same outcome (access to healthcare, to jobs, to relationships) as others.

In a purely darwinian sense, you might argue that caring for the sick, disabled, mentally disadvantaged all would bring our civilization to a stand still. I would argue that doesn't break any universal rule because the universe already does this quite successfully in other pack animals and we've done so for centuries to no ill effect..

That is not at all what I am saying.

However I agree that it is difficult to discuss as we need to define woke first and what aspects of woke is the issue.
I am focusing on the woke aspect of equity (equal outcomes for everyone).

What I am trying so say is this:

I do state that the sick/stupid/slow antelope survives in the herd. And they survive because the herd is strong and the strong protects them. Not much wrong in that as that ensures diversity in the pack. It is Darwinian wise the clever thing to do.

However, and this is the important part:
The strong and the weak are NOT equally rewarded. Only the strong breed. The weak never do (males anyway for herbivores and most carnivores even the weak females are not allowed to breed). They don’t live as long and they don’t get the best food.

Now the analogy in civilisation is not allowing humans to breed or not... it is that there is different reward for different contributions.
Once you say we all should receive the same reward irrespective of contribution (equity), the system weakens and eventually fails. Like it would if you allow weak animals to breed in the herd.
It is the strong that makes it possible for the weak to survive. Destroy or dilute the strong and you kill the weak.

This is different to equality (giving everyone the same opportunity irrespective of their abilities) and hence you take care of the weak.
However you don’t make the weak, the leaders in your civilisation.
Which is what the woke wants us to do. We should have “representative” boardrooms and management. This does not happen in nature for good reason.

Does that make sense?

The principle of taking care of the weak and your example of giving wheelchair access to disabled predates “woke” by decades. These are not “woke” principles. The religious have been preaching that for 4000 years.

And giving wheelchair access is equal opportunity (equality), not equal outcome (equity). The disabled has the opportunity to access a library. It does not ensure that they will get the same learning from the library. That is completely up to the disabled person.


However you don’t make the weak, the leaders in your civilisation.

FDR, american president, leader, was wheelchair bound due to polio..
Antoine Pinay, french prime minister, leader, had a paralyzed left arm
Gordon Brown, uk pm, leader, was blind in one eye.

All of these are weaknesses as per darwinian evolution.
All were leaders and (I suspect) procreated.

And giving wheelchair access is equal opportunity (equality), not equal outcome (equity)

The outcome of wheelchair access is making it into the library, not learning. In that sense, there is equal opportunity and equal outcome between a wheelchair bound person and a non-wheelchair bound person by virtue of the access ramp giving both the opportunity to equally access the library.

I think the fundamental problem for me is that as much as I'm not for "woke" culture, I don't see it as you see it, as basically communism ("Once you say we all should receive the same reward irrespective of contribution" ). I see them as social idealists, "social justice warriors", but not communists.

FDR, Pinay and Brown are NOT weak. They had exceptional brains. From a Darwinian perspective they are excellent and strong leaders. Darwinian evolution does not say physically strong is strong... it means most fit for purpose is strong.
They do not need to be able to walk or use their right arm or eye. They need to have brains and the ability to lead.
You misunderstood what I meant with weak or what Darwin evolution means.

For example:
Kiwi birds became smaller when humans arrived in NZ because that is what made them hide better. Being small is a strength in this case.

When I say strong and weak I refer to whatever characteristics make them strong and weak in that specific case. Else black basketball players need to rule the world.
And since we don’t know what characteristics we may need in the future it makes sense to help the “weak” since they may be “strong” in other areas we may need later.

Originally you asked a simple question: which of the universes rules does being woke break?

I gave you an example:
Woke wants equal outcomes for all. This does not exist in nature. Evolution suggest that is a rule of nature since all species and extinctions follow it.


I think to explain your fundamental problem:
Parts of Woke are good, however it is not original. The principle of accepting people for who they are, is older than woke. The principle of equal opportunity etc. We don’t need woke to do that... we were well on our way before woke started.
Parts of woke are bad, and it is not original either. It is the bad ideas from communism.
Of course not all ideas from socialism and communism is bad. You may have seen me propose many socialist ideas I think are good.

Write Comment More
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:192419
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.