content: Well so the fuck what! There are a lot of people who do want to be emperor and they are exactly the types of people who will be emperor and who we don't want as our rulers.  Let me break that down: People who don't want to be emperor will be emperor and bad ones. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think that, throughout the history of humanity, there has been anyone who has become emperor without wanting it. People don't just voluntarily give up their freedoms to an absolute ruler. In order to become an emperor you have to take it by force and no one has ever used force to take something that they don't want. Why would I beat the shit out of you, and risk having the shit beat out of myself,  just so that I could take your literal shit?  Is this guy serious. Humans define their existence through their suffering, not their happiness. Humans define their group identity through their shared or common suffering and struggles.  Yes, but aren't those groups formed to end that common suffering or struggle? So isn't the ultimate purpose of that group to make everyone within it happy?  Does he have a source on that, because I'm not convinced there's enough space, food, and resources for all possible other people.  Yes, that's true on earth today, but in 1940 the population of the Earth was 2.3 billion people, far less than today, and no one had any idea that there would be 7 billion people alive in 2016. And even today, the universe is infinite, with enough resources to provide for far more people than are alive today. And with more efficient farming techniques we may even be able to provide for more than the 7 billion people currently alive with the resources available on Earth. Point being, if we were able to work together to develop better agriculture techniques and spacefaring technology we would be able to create more resources than by simply squabbling over the ones currently existing.  No, multiculturalism produced natural and inevitable competitions as each group worked to gain advantages for it's own members.  Yes, people do suck and this is kind of a weakness in his argument. The answer is to turn towards reason rather than petty superstition, but it has to be embraced by everyone. And currently there are far too many people not accepting it for it to be viable. Particularly in the Middle East, Africa and other backwards cultures. The problem with the European 'cucks' and naive leftists isn't that their ideas are bad, but that they ignore that those they're trying to help don't accept their ideas too.  No. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. As productivity increases, businesses take advantages of economies of scale and... you know what? Read a fucking economics book. It's not the machinery's fault that markets are manipulated by government's and powerful non-state actors. Seriously, leave the machinery alone. What the fuck did it ever do to you?  He's not blaming the machinery here, he's blaming people's reaction to the machinery.  Have you considered that both knowledge and cynicism might be good things? I mean, it's not like knowledge or cynicism have ever hurt anyone. Although there are probably people who have been hurt by not being cynical or knowledgeable enough.  True, I prefer cynicism to naivety, as I said above. But we could all still get more from working together towards higher aspirations than by squabbling over these few pebbles that we do have. We should work from people's own interest in themselves to move towards progress.  Are you sure? Because we have 3.8 billion years of life and violence throughout that time. Why would life suddenly be lost this time? I'm putting my money on the 3.8 billion year track record of life plus violence not being a big deal.  Violence with sticks and swords is far different from violence with firearms, tanks and nuclear weapons. You can't destroy the planet with a stick, but you can wipe out the human race many times over with our current nuclear stockpiles.  "The airplane and the radio have brought us closer together." Again that's not how any of this works.  Before the invention of radio, you had to send a letter by train over a few days to send a message, but once radio came about it took a few seconds. The plane allowed us to travel much further in a shorter span of time. It very much allowed us to live in a smaller, more connected world.