These are valid points. Cooperative groups outcompete non-cooperative groups and humans have evolved around that. But that aspect of human nature evolved in a radically different context to the modern world. Cooperation evolved when humans lived in small groups at the scale where everyone knew each other and "bad" actions were always known about by everyone in the group and usually punished/discouraged in some way. People outside that group were always viewed with suspicion and wariness. The human brain is hardwired to identify and categorise everyone into "us" or "them" groups.

When human groups grew to the size where it was normal to interact with strangers then that radically changed the way that human cooperation had to work, the rules are very different than the ones we originally evolved with. As you said, organised religion and governance specifically grew out of the need to manage this. In a large society with ubiquitous anonymity, it is much more feasible to be non-cooperative and still be successful in an evolutionary sense (i.e. have plenty of surviving offspring). Modern human societies, with specialisation of labour and market economies, enable this and I think can be argued even encourage "bad"/non-cooperative behaviour in many ways.

we urgently need to learn cooperation outside of state controles rule

I completely agree. But it's difficult, because forming trust with a bunch of strangers goes against human nature. You need to find a way to get people's brains to identify those strangers as an "us" instead of a "them".

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Most people have a perception bias for "bad" people, but it's justified because the potential outcomes of being a victim of a bad person are astronomical. So it doesn't matter if the vast majority of people are "good", because a single encounter with a bad person can be catastrophic, so it makes logical sense to be wary if you know there are any amount of bad people around.

Now of course this instinct gets manipulated by the media and politicians and all that, but the initial instinct is perfectly reasonable, imo.

That woman has parasites.

Clever.

Hilarious that this is true and yet the US is still somehow fatter.

I regularly say "Hooray, I'm helping!" to my wife.

Clickbait title. This is in the context of competitive coding, which is a very specific and constrained programming exercise with a time limit. Which is not at all comparable to real world software development.

I saw Bladerunner as a teenager and it affected me so much I'm now a grown-ass man living in a cyberpunk dystopia. Follow your dreams.

DO NOT ASK SOCIAL MEDIA IMPORTANT MEDICAL QUESTIONS. CONSULT AN EXPERT.

Almost all of the replies here are wrong or missing important information.

It's not written like typical sci-fi, it's more like an art house (for lack of a better term) novel that happens to have a sci-fi setting. William Burroughs was a major influence on his writing and Neuromancer is perhaps the most obvious example of that.

It rewards re-reading immensely, I would advise to just go with the flow and don't sweat the bits you can't quite grasp, a lot of it makes more sense over time or clicks when you re-read it. It is incredibly worth it, imo, an absolute masterpiece of literary talent and prescient speculative fiction.

Having said that, if that style isn't really your thing and you prefer more straight-forward sci-fi, then you will probably not dig it.

edit: After posting this comment I re-loaded my feed and there's a post about William Burroughs directly above this one. Bill would be pleased.

"Men are victims of the patriarchy too" is an incredibly powerful message that I wish more men understood.

I'm so fucking tired, you guys.