> Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely because that stability is adversarial. Where's your argument here? > Your argume

> Virtually every stable system humanity has ever devised is stable precisely because that stability is adversarial. Where's your argument here? > Your argument against people becoming hostage negotiators relies, as far as I can tell, on this being an extreme state for humans, and therefore totally unsustainable, but like... why? No, my argument against people becoming hostage negotiators is that it sounds very stressful, unpleasant, and dangerous. I simply don't want to do it. Kudos to professional hostage negotiators, to be sure, but it's not a job most people want. At least professional negotiators get paid, I assume. > It's like arguing that bridges can't stand up because they are subject to extreme forces from all sides. Why are you comparing people to inanimate objects? I'd rather not be walked on, thank you. > Sustained human existence is work, your proposed sanity preserving option is just nihilism, and it is unsustainable This is a weird attitude. Humans have existed for thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years. All without online social networks. We could ditch them all and be fine. Arguably better than now.