Apologies in advance, hate doing this but just for fun I ran the claim that inner work can save the world through the Abductio framework as described in this post: Abductio: Extraordinary Evidence for Extraordinary Claims
by @dvdjsph
This was my claim (I made a mistake - should have said promoted alternative to zero sum game, hopefully the Ai understood what I meant)
It came up with rival theories and at the end of the enquiry concluded that institutional/policy reforms are most likely to bring about sufficient changes to save the planet.
this is the conclusion:
So, my question is - are people always supposed to run things through an algorithmical analytical process and abide by its conclusions (that it’s not achievable in this case) or is there still space for doing things that you think can work even when analytical wisdom tells us that it’s not viable?