It's alright to disagree. It's also fine not to come to the same conclusions. A conversation serves well when it can inspire and give a deep authentic sense of the people involved, yes.

Surely your knowledge and appreciation of what you believe in comes not only from personal conversations but also from studying texts or following publicly available debates where the arguments count and not the person making them? Or am I seeing this wrong?

I don't care about Peterson's celebrity status, but I appreciate his precise way of thinking and arguing. It is through his way of arguing and looking at an issue that I sharpen my own. It's not so much his opinion but how he arrives at them. His and other peoples influence you see in parts reflected in the dialogue between you and me.

I depend on role models. A high followership on youtube does not automatically mean that there are only artificial people talking, like we see in the clownesque established media. Though I reassure you that I also follow the dialogues always with high consciousness and am staying critical.

Just briefly to "main causes auf death". I am not so much interested in those causes but more what helps a life which emphasizes salutogenesis instead of pathology. Living "rich" in terms of faith and trust instead of distrust and disappointment. To have seen the ideals betrayed does not reduce the meaning of the ideals, it challenges all the more to not let them fall by the side, respectively to revive them, in my view.

I am very well aware where you might see the advantages of AI-assistance in health care. I just don't share them and probably rate them much lower than you do.

As I happen to visit your blog once in a while, we managed to learn to respect each other with this back and forth of arguing as well as giving personal information. As long as people are able doing so, one can speak of a healthy relationship, how ever temporarily it is.