Is humanity making progress, or regressing into the ditch?

[PlantBased]

When endeavoring to correct an issue a wise person will always seek out the root off of the problem .  For example: the root  issue in the FIRE movement is savings rate, not making more money (which generally only leads to more spending).  If spending is not addressed, nothing changes for the man living paycheck to paycheck.

Some people get encouraged when they see a political change, but what good will it do when the root cause(s) of societies troubles are ignored?  So the real question is, what's at the root of societies disfunction?  Would you agree most babies are innocent and uncorrupted?  And then as a child or adult grows they progress in a given direct based on their environment; for the good, or misfortune of society as a whole.  So what causes individuals to slide into the ditch, and become a net negative for society?  5 root issues come to mind, and in no particular order:

1. TV-media - I wonder if anyone has ever studied the resulting impact of an individual's psyche from watching hour after hour of extreme violence, sex, horror films, and crimes against humanity?  And what can be said of the innumerous hidden motives found in movies, other programming, and advertising which focuses on sales over the welfare of the community.

2. Parents, and the mother - There has been a role reversal, and the media has been proclaiming it to be great progress.  The infant is crying alone in the crib, just at the time when it should be developing it's 1st and most important bond with it's mother.  Finer feeling, and matters of the heart are developed in infancy and childhood.  The close bond with the mother, is the bond that eventually brings the child closer to all of humanity.   But left alone, feelings of abandonment and a disappointment in the mother (and others) grow, and last for a lifetime.  The next time you meet a young adult who lacks social skills, respect, or seems coldly detached you now know why.  Pity them, and then their parents when they eventually receive like treatment in old age.

3. Drugs-alcohol - have you ever watched someone fall into addiction and noticed their life quickly deteriorate?  When it comes to their use (moderate or heavy drugs & alcohol use ) the only real difference is to the degree of influence, or velocity at which an individual speeds into the ditch.   A drugged individual will behave and do things in a way they would not otherwise.  Drugs have a corrosive effect on the mind, and eventually habbit turns into nature.  Some will go away here, but hard facts will be needed to be addressed if real change is desired. When nothing changes for the good, there is a reason for that.

4. Diet - The foundation of the mind is the body, and a sickly or strong  body has great influence on the mind.  The next time you are around someone dealing with a chronic illness, notice how it also effects their mood.  A normally good natured person could become constantly irritable. There is much confusion here owing to big business, and special interest, but all large studies say the exact same thing: as fruit and vegetable intake increases so does good health. And we create unnatural ways to quickly fatten farm animals for greater profits, and humanity somehow becomes more, and more obese each decade, but somehow fails to connect the dots. 

5.  Guidance - finally we come to the root it.   Mankind without proper guidance can go in but one direction.  Spirituality is the key, not necessarily religious mind you, but even that is on the decline. Without a compass mankind has no direction, and the tendency is to live only for self.  And a life of self indulgences always deteriorates and disappoints in the end.

The assumption here is that human's nature is the problem, and that is what needs to be fixed, not more infrastructure spending or whatever distractions they try to push.     When we look at COVID, what is the root of the problem, and could it possibly be addressed above?  Where do you see society and humanity headed?

[leighb]

Your original question was about the whole of society. Which by many metrics has been improving over the decades.

Then you focus your question on what's the problem for the folks who fail for some reason. I would say that there is a price to pay for the things we see as progress. And that price is often paid by the most vulnerable.

I see a lot of what you listed as reactions to loss. (Diet, drugs, depression, unhealthy media consumption)

[John Galt incarnate!]

Your original question was about the whole of society. Which by many metrics has been improving over the decades.

Agree.

[John Galt incarnate!]

2. Parents, and the mother - There has been a role reversal, and the media has been proclaiming it to be great progress.  The infant is crying alone in the crib, just at the time when it should be developing it's 1st and most important bond with it's mother.  Finer feeling, and matters of the heart are developed in infancy and childhood.  The close bond with the mother, is the bond that eventually brings the child closer to all of humanity.   But left alone, feelings of abandonment and a disappointment in the mother (and others) grow, and last for a lifetime.  The next time you meet a young adult who lacks social skills, respect, or seems coldly detached you now know why.  Pity them, and then their parents when they eventually receive like treatment in old age.


Absent-father  households concern me.

An absent father is all too common in convicts' backgrounds.


The assumption here is that human's nature is the problem, and that is what needs to be fixed.

I harbor no utopic fantasies  about the fixity of human nature: The works of Shakespeare come to mind.


 Where do you see society and humanity headed?

Neither is  ascendant  if it is true that average IQ is declining.


IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries and that ...www.nbcnews.com › think › opinion › iq-rates-are-dro...
May 22, 2019 — Image: IQ rates are dropping and we're too stupid to figure out why. IQ rates are falling ... People are getting dumber. That's not a judgment; ...

Humanity Might Not Be Getting Dumber After All, New Study ...www.inc.com › jessica-stillman › humanity-might-not-be-...
Jun 27, 2019 — Scientists noticed a worrying decline in IQ scores recently, but a new study suggests we don't need to be alarmed.

We Are All Getting Dumber, New Science Proves, and No One ...www.inc.com › jessica-stillman › we-are-all-getting-dumb...
Jun 14, 2018 — Humanity is now officially getting dumber. It probably shouldn't worry us if some pocket of the population saw a decline in IQ as things like ...

[tct]

I agree with attacking the root of the problem, however many times those we hire to address the issues get elected by promising free stuff rather than promoting personal responsibility.

[EvenSteven]

I read your list of things you see as the root of all societies problems as:

1) Violence and sex on TV
2) Women in the work force
3) Drugs
4) Fat people
5) Lack of enough God

Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but I don't think I agree with your assessment of either what societies problems are or what their root cause is.

[mozar]

The concept of society isn't an embedded law of nature. Humans choose to make a society.  The way I see it we're getting better and better at it.

1. Yup, there's been lots of studies.

2. I'm not sure what your point is here.

3. A way that society is improving is treating drug addiction as a mental health issue and helping them get treatment. Yay, us!

4. I don't think humanity fails to connect the dots. I think it's a lot more complicated. I think people want meat for the same reason they want trucks, it makes them feel like they are winning at life by being opulent. I agree we should all eat more fruits and vegetables. I'm a raw vegan :-)

5. I agree that guidance is really helpful. I am so grateful for the help I have received on this here forum. It's completely changed my life. In my own experience though, anecdotally, people don't want help.

The root of humanity's issues, in my opinion, is a contingent of people who feel they have a right to more than everyone else, a right to make others suffer, and a right to destroy as they see fit. These people have trillions of dollars in reserve to fight progress.

Anyways, thanks for helping me procrastinate!

[Metalcat]

I read your initial post a few times and I don't really get what you are asking.

Yes, social issues are enormously complex, and individual government policies are not going to solve them. Anyone who has studied political science, anthropology, and history knows this in detail.

Of course governments are corrupt, of course media has an agenda (and yes, it is well studied), of course addiction is a problem (as it always has been) and the agencies ostensibly responsible to solving such as the legal system and the medical system have directly caused so much of it (I've organized lectures on this).

Of course the world is a giant cluster fuck, but it always has been. The forces of greed and power have always been a toxic shit show and droves of people have always been hurt by it.

Spiritual guidance is the answer?? Are you kidding me? You do realize that spiritual guidance is and always has been one of the key tools for war and oppression right? For, like, ALL of recorded human history.

I'm not saying that spirituality is a bad thing, but organizing it and giving it power has not worked out well for humanity historically.

The list of horrors of the world is so, so much bigger and more profound that what you've presented here, it doesn't even begin to get close to the magnitude of ugliness and suffering that's out there.

The problems of our world are so massive and complex, that's why solving them is so difficult. It's not that they aren't understood, and if only we just paid attention to the underlying causes we could so easily solve them. That's not how it works.

The problem is that identifying the underlying issues is like identifying that someone has cancer. It's one thing to understand it, it's another to get rid of it without enormous collateral damage or even killing the entity that has the problem.

For each major problem, the solution comes with collateral damage that is very, very difficult to agree on as acceptable.

If understanding the source of problems was all we needed and spirituality was the answer, then the middle East would be the most peaceful place on earth and they would have developed a plan to abandon their oil production in the 90s.

As for babies left in cribs to cry, well, the research does not support that young people are growing up more fucked up. In fact, a ton of research shows that today's young people are more conscientious, more civic minded, and engage in far less risky behaviour than previous generations.

I mean, do you even remember what young Gen X was like??? Fuck, we thought the sky was falling with how messed up they were. Then what happened? They all moved to the suburbs and bought minivans.

I give any talk of "young people today" or "we knew how to raise kids back then" a solid eye roll. When I was a kid moderate hitting, fat shaming, and smoking in cars with kids was normal. Meanwhile, people with PhDs in developmental psychology actually recommend leaving babies to self soothe, so I really don't see that as our social fabric falling apart.

[maizefolk]

I agree our society has a lot of problems. Viewed through a 50 year lens we are still making a vast amount of progress at making a better and more just world. Though a 10 or 15 year lens I am not so sure. I think you and I agree about a number of the symptoms today, but disagree fundamentally about the root cause. My view is that so much of what is wrong today can be traced back to a resource scarcity mindset that has its root both in A) a real increase in the precariousness of the economic situations many people find themselves in in the world today and B) a perceived decrease in people's economic situations as folks rely more and more on TV and social media to calibrate their sense of what "normal" and "successful" look like.

1) I think the problem of TV (and I'd add social media here) has less to do with exposure to and desensitization to violence, and more to do with watching TV giving people an unrealistic view of what a "normal" life is (how big a house they should have, how attractive their significant other should be, how little they should have to work and how little they should have to think about/worry about money), and then being dissatisfied with the actual lives they are leading by comparison.

2) I don't think this has to be specific to mothers. I do think children tend to get less one on one attention from their parents (combined) than they did in prior generations. As human labor becomes less valuable and TV/social media continue to raise the bar for what a normal amount of prosperity is, fewer and fewer families feel like their can afford for either parent to stay home with children for more than a few weeks after birth.

3) I think drug use is generally a symptom of people feeling despair and hopelessness rather than the root cause. So while it certainly worries me to see the uptick in the use and abuse rates for everything from alcohol to opiates, I see that as more a big flashing red warning light about the state of our society rather than what is triggering the warning light.

4) I guess I just disagree with you on this one.

5) When people don't feel scared about not having enough resources for themselves and their families, they tend to be much more altruistic. Induce a resource scarcity mindset and markers for racism, sexism, and any other negative -ism you care to mind all climb dramatically. While caring for others and not just oneself certainly does lead to a more satisfying and more fulfilling life, is the problem a lack of guidance or a lack of the surpluses (real and perceived) which enable a giving and caring mindset in more people.

[Metalcat]

^opiate deaths are way up, but everything I've read actually says that drug use is down among young people compared to previous generations, the lowest in history, lower than they've ever been *including* abuse of opiates.

[maizefolk]

^opiate deaths are way up, but everything I've read actually says that drug use is down among young people compared to previous generations, the lowest in history, lower than they've ever been *including* abuse of opiates.

My impression was that use and abuse rates are up for people in their 40s-60s (when despair/lack of hope really settles in), but perhaps this impression of mine is also incorrect?

[Metalcat]

^opiate deaths are way up, but everything I've read actually says that drug use is down among young people compared to previous generations, the lowest in history, lower than they've ever been *including* abuse of opiates.

My impression was that use and abuse rates are up for people in their 40s-60s (when despair/lack of hope really settles in), but perhaps this impression of mine is also incorrect?

Yes, I was just specifically referring to young people, and I find it telling that's it's the young people of the past who are increasing their uptake, while the young people of today are abstaining in record numbers.

Doesn't really fit with OP's society is going to hell because of the way children are being raised with media and lack of spirituality. 

[FINate]

I'll probably regret commenting on this later, but here goes... [Aside: Mods should probably move this thread to Off Topic.]

One person's progress is another person's regression. The idea of Progress is deeply ingrained in the American (more generally, Western?) psyche. Manifest Destiny and genocide of indigenous peoples was done, in part, in the name of progress. Technological process is historically intertwined with warfare and developing more efficient means to kill and destroy more, and faster. We have destroyed and denigrated the environment in the name of progress. Within my lifetime, and I remember this well, the internet was once considered unambiguous progress to unshackle us from the gatekeepers of communication and bring about a golden age of democratized free speech that would enlighten the world. Uh, yeah, that's not exactly what happened.

The things listed above aren't necessarily bad (though many are), but rather often a nuanced mix of plusses and negatives that, I think, should challenge assumptions that progress (whatever that means to whoever) is guaranteed or somehow baked into the long arch of history. In other words, as we believe we are progressing (or regressing) we should have a great deal of humility and circumspection. Things we think are wonderful may not be that great in the long term. And folks lamenting "regression" probably need to take a critical look at what good has come of it. Even though the internet is a hot mess, it is also good in many respects.

IMHO, the root problem is biological, where each individual has a very strong urge to maximize the amount of dopamine even if this comes at the expense of others or the environment (which is a one-level removed version of hurting others). In pre-history -- early hominoids and then small bands of homo sapiens -- this had an evolutionary advantage (including some evolutionary advantageous small group dynamics), yet this quickly falls short in larger groups with weaker social bonds. In other words, our biological self interest has not evolved to keep up with societal advances.

E.g. I think our problems are rooted in selfishness. And the major world religions and philosophies all wrestle with self and self-interest, and how to die to self or generally put others first. For the ancient Greek philosophers the "Good Life" was really about the life worth living, not owning a house and or taking a vacation every year, or whatever most moderns think it means.

[Metalcat]

I'll probably regret commenting on this later, but here goes... [Aside: Mods should probably move this thread to Off Topic.]

One person's progress is another person's regression. The idea of Progress is deeply ingrained in the American (more generally, Western?) psyche. Manifest Destiny and genocide of indigenous peoples was done, in part, in the name of progress. Technological process is historically intertwined with warfare and developing more efficient means to kill and destroy more, and faster. We have destroyed and denigrated the environment in the name of progress. Within my lifetime, and I remember this well, the internet was once considered unambiguous progress to unshackle us from the gatekeepers of communication and bring about a golden age of democratized free speech that would enlighten the world. Uh, yeah, that's not exactly what happened.

The things listed above aren't necessarily bad (though many are), but rather often a nuanced mix of plusses and negatives that, I think, should challenge assumptions that progress (whatever that means to whoever) is guaranteed or somehow baked into the long arch of history. In other words, as we believe we are progressing (or regressing) we should have a great deal of humility and circumspection. Things we think are wonderful may not be that great in the long term. And folks lamenting "regression" probably need to take a critical look at what good has come of it. Even though the internet is a hot mess, it is also good in many respects.

IMHO, the root problem is biological, where each individual has a very strong urge to maximize the amount of dopamine even if this comes at the expense of others or the environment (which is a one-level removed version of hurting others). In pre-history -- early hominoids and then small bands of homo sapiens -- this had an evolutionary advantage (including some evolutionary advantageous small group dynamics), yet this quickly falls short in larger groups with weaker social bonds. In other words, our biological self interest has not evolved to keep up with societal advances.

E.g. I think our problems are rooted in selfishness. And the major world religions and philosophies all wrestle with self and self-interest, and how to die to self or generally put others first. For the ancient Greek philosophers the "Good Life" was really about the life worth living, not owning a house and or taking a vacation every year, or whatever most moderns think it means.

But high minded ancient Greek philosophers whose wisdom has survived through Millenia hardly represent the whole of society at that time.

Likewise, the high minded philosophers of today aren't exactly preaching detached homes in the suburbs and two SUVs as the path to enlightenment.

You can't compare apples to oranges and say that they used to have it right in the past.

[FINate]

I'll probably regret commenting on this later, but here goes... [Aside: Mods should probably move this thread to Off Topic.]

One person's progress is another person's regression. The idea of Progress is deeply ingrained in the American (more generally, Western?) psyche. Manifest Destiny and genocide of indigenous peoples was done, in part, in the name of progress. Technological process is historically intertwined with warfare and developing more efficient means to kill and destroy more, and faster. We have destroyed and denigrated the environment in the name of progress. Within my lifetime, and I remember this well, the internet was once considered unambiguous progress to unshackle us from the gatekeepers of communication and bring about a golden age of democratized free speech that would enlighten the world. Uh, yeah, that's not exactly what happened.

The things listed above aren't necessarily bad (though many are), but rather often a nuanced mix of plusses and negatives that, I think, should challenge assumptions that progress (whatever that means to whoever) is guaranteed or somehow baked into the long arch of history. In other words, as we believe we are progressing (or regressing) we should have a great deal of humility and circumspection. Things we think are wonderful may not be that great in the long term. And folks lamenting "regression" probably need to take a critical look at what good has come of it. Even though the internet is a hot mess, it is also good in many respects.

IMHO, the root problem is biological, where each individual has a very strong urge to maximize the amount of dopamine even if this comes at the expense of others or the environment (which is a one-level removed version of hurting others). In pre-history -- early hominoids and then small bands of homo sapiens -- this had an evolutionary advantage (including some evolutionary advantageous small group dynamics), yet this quickly falls short in larger groups with weaker social bonds. In other words, our biological self interest has not evolved to keep up with societal advances.

E.g. I think our problems are rooted in selfishness. And the major world religions and philosophies all wrestle with self and self-interest, and how to die to self or generally put others first. For the ancient Greek philosophers the "Good Life" was really about the life worth living, not owning a house and or taking a vacation every year, or whatever most moderns think it means.

But high minded ancient Greek philosophers whose wisdom has survived through Millenia hardly represent the whole of society at that time.

Likewise, the high minded philosophers of today aren't exactly preaching detached homes in the suburbs and two SUVs as the path to enlightenment.

You can't compare apples to oranges and say that they used to have it right in the past.

Mostly agree, though I would argue that there are plenty of people who believe a house in the burbs and two SUVs are the path to enlightenment, aka the American Dream. You may not regard them as high minded, but that's your value judgement (which I happen to agree with) though many in our polarized nation would disagree.

And I'm not saying people in the past necessarily had everything right, clearly they didn't. But rather we are too eager to discard the past as irrelevant or completely outdated while assuming our vision of progress is correct. When, in fact, humanity has long struggled with what "progress" means, and past generations didn't get it right, nor will we because what I think is good is tangled up with what I think is good for me.

[Metalcat]

I'll probably regret commenting on this later, but here goes... [Aside: Mods should probably move this thread to Off Topic.]

One person's progress is another person's regression. The idea of Progress is deeply ingrained in the American (more generally, Western?) psyche. Manifest Destiny and genocide of indigenous peoples was done, in part, in the name of progress. Technological process is historically intertwined with warfare and developing more efficient means to kill and destroy more, and faster. We have destroyed and denigrated the environment in the name of progress. Within my lifetime, and I remember this well, the internet was once considered unambiguous progress to unshackle us from the gatekeepers of communication and bring about a golden age of democratized free speech that would enlighten the world. Uh, yeah, that's not exactly what happened.

The things listed above aren't necessarily bad (though many are), but rather often a nuanced mix of plusses and negatives that, I think, should challenge assumptions that progress (whatever that means to whoever) is guaranteed or somehow baked into the long arch of history. In other words, as we believe we are progressing (or regressing) we should have a great deal of humility and circumspection. Things we think are wonderful may not be that great in the long term. And folks lamenting "regression" probably need to take a critical look at what good has come of it. Even though the internet is a hot mess, it is also good in many respects.

IMHO, the root problem is biological, where each individual has a very strong urge to maximize the amount of dopamine even if this comes at the expense of others or the environment (which is a one-level removed version of hurting others). In pre-history -- early hominoids and then small bands of homo sapiens -- this had an evolutionary advantage (including some evolutionary advantageous small group dynamics), yet this quickly falls short in larger groups with weaker social bonds. In other words, our biological self interest has not evolved to keep up with societal advances.

E.g. I think our problems are rooted in selfishness. And the major world religions and philosophies all wrestle with self and self-interest, and how to die to self or generally put others first. For the ancient Greek philosophers the "Good Life" was really about the life worth living, not owning a house and or taking a vacation every year, or whatever most moderns think it means.

But high minded ancient Greek philosophers whose wisdom has survived through Millenia hardly represent the whole of society at that time.

Likewise, the high minded philosophers of today aren't exactly preaching detached homes in the suburbs and two SUVs as the path to enlightenment.

You can't compare apples to oranges and say that they used to have it right in the past.

Mostly agree, though I would argue that there are plenty of people who believe a house in the burbs and two SUVs are the path to enlightenment, aka the American Dream. You may not regard them as high minded, but that's your value judgement (which I happen to agree with) though many in our polarized nation would disagree.

And I'm not saying people in the past necessarily had everything right, clearly they didn't. But rather we are too eager to discard the past as irrelevant or completely outdated while assuming our vision of progress is correct. When, in fact, humanity has long struggled with what "progress" means, and past generations didn't get it right, nor will we because what I think is good is tangled up with what I think is good for me.

I never said all high minded people are against consumerism. I said there are plenty of high minded philosophers today who are.

I also don't discard the importance of the past. I've been reading history and anthropology since I was a child. What I don't believe is that the words of the ancient Greek philosophers somehow represents the overall values of the people at the time. That personal possessions weren't important to human beings in 800BC, that power wasn't corrupt, etc.

None of my reading of that time period suggest that.

[maizefolk]

I also don't discard the importance of the past. I've been reading history and anthropology since I was a child. What I don't believe is that the words of the ancient Greek philosophers somehow represents the overall values of the people at the time. That personal possessions weren't important to human beings in 800BC, that power wasn't corrupt, etc.

If I can try rephrasing what you said to see if I understand your point correctly, I understand you you to saying that people who have interesting and counter-intuitive views about what lead to a good life were more likely to 1) write them down in the first place 2) their writing was more likely to be copied and shared and survive to the present day, while the greek farmer who felt that the good life consisted of a stone house without gaps to let the wind blow through, having enough cows they could kill and roast one every week and being able to afford to drink wine every night would be less likely to write it down (because it feels obvious) and if they did write it down, people might be less likely to read, copy, and save their writing because in any given era plenty of contemporaries would be making the same case.

Or TL;DR The ancient writings that survive are a nonrandom sample of the thoughts written down in those eras and the thoughts written down in those eras were a nonrandom sample of what people were actually thinking.

[FINate]

I'll probably regret commenting on this later, but here goes... [Aside: Mods should probably move this thread to Off Topic.]

One person's progress is another person's regression. The idea of Progress is deeply ingrained in the American (more generally, Western?) psyche. Manifest Destiny and genocide of indigenous peoples was done, in part, in the name of progress. Technological process is historically intertwined with warfare and developing more efficient means to kill and destroy more, and faster. We have destroyed and denigrated the environment in the name of progress. Within my lifetime, and I remember this well, the internet was once considered unambiguous progress to unshackle us from the gatekeepers of communication and bring about a golden age of democratized free speech that would enlighten the world. Uh, yeah, that's not exactly what happened.

The things listed above aren't necessarily bad (though many are), but rather often a nuanced mix of plusses and negatives that, I think, should challenge assumptions that progress (whatever that means to whoever) is guaranteed or somehow baked into the long arch of history. In other words, as we believe we are progressing (or regressing) we should have a great deal of humility and circumspection. Things we think are wonderful may not be that great in the long term. And folks lamenting "regression" probably need to take a critical look at what good has come of it. Even though the internet is a hot mess, it is also good in many respects.

IMHO, the root problem is biological, where each individual has a very strong urge to maximize the amount of dopamine even if this comes at the expense of others or the environment (which is a one-level removed version of hurting others). In pre-history -- early hominoids and then small bands of homo sapiens -- this had an evolutionary advantage (including some evolutionary advantageous small group dynamics), yet this quickly falls short in larger groups with weaker social bonds. In other words, our biological self interest has not evolved to keep up with societal advances.

E.g. I think our problems are rooted in selfishness. And the major world religions and philosophies all wrestle with self and self-interest, and how to die to self or generally put others first. For the ancient Greek philosophers the "Good Life" was really about the life worth living, not owning a house and or taking a vacation every year, or whatever most moderns think it means.

But high minded ancient Greek philosophers whose wisdom has survived through Millenia hardly represent the whole of society at that time.

Likewise, the high minded philosophers of today aren't exactly preaching detached homes in the suburbs and two SUVs as the path to enlightenment.

You can't compare apples to oranges and say that they used to have it right in the past.

Mostly agree, though I would argue that there are plenty of people who believe a house in the burbs and two SUVs are the path to enlightenment, aka the American Dream. You may not regard them as high minded, but that's your value judgement (which I happen to agree with) though many in our polarized nation would disagree.

And I'm not saying people in the past necessarily had everything right, clearly they didn't. But rather we are too eager to discard the past as irrelevant or completely outdated while assuming our vision of progress is correct. When, in fact, humanity has long struggled with what "progress" means, and past generations didn't get it right, nor will we because what I think is good is tangled up with what I think is good for me.

I never said all high minded people are against consumerism. I said there are plenty of high minded philosophers today who are.

I also don't discard the importance of the past. I've been reading history and anthropology since I was a child. What I don't believe is that the words of the ancient Greek philosophers somehow represents the overall values of the people at the time. That personal possessions weren't important to human beings in 800BC, that power wasn't corrupt, etc.

None of my reading of that time period suggest that.

Again, agreed. But the fact that those thinkers were largely ignored (or killed even) by their contemporaries should give us pause about how confident we are in our own definitions of progress. It's like picking stocks: easy to spot the winners in hindsight, but doing it in the moment is far trickier.

[Metalcat]

I'll probably regret commenting on this later, but here goes... [Aside: Mods should probably move this thread to Off Topic.]

One person's progress is another person's regression. The idea of Progress is deeply ingrained in the American (more generally, Western?) psyche. Manifest Destiny and genocide of indigenous peoples was done, in part, in the name of progress. Technological process is historically intertwined with warfare and developing more efficient means to kill and destroy more, and faster. We have destroyed and denigrated the environment in the name of progress. Within my lifetime, and I remember this well, the internet was once considered unambiguous progress to unshackle us from the gatekeepers of communication and bring about a golden age of democratized free speech that would enlighten the world. Uh, yeah, that's not exactly what happened.

The things listed above aren't necessarily bad (though many are), but rather often a nuanced mix of plusses and negatives that, I think, should challenge assumptions that progress (whatever that means to whoever) is guaranteed or somehow baked into the long arch of history. In other words, as we believe we are progressing (or regressing) we should have a great deal of humility and circumspection. Things we think are wonderful may not be that great in the long term. And folks lamenting "regression" probably need to take a critical look at what good has come of it. Even though the internet is a hot mess, it is also good in many respects.

IMHO, the root problem is biological, where each individual has a very strong urge to maximize the amount of dopamine even if this comes at the expense of others or the environment (which is a one-level removed version of hurting others). In pre-history -- early hominoids and then small bands of homo sapiens -- this had an evolutionary advantage (including some evolutionary advantageous small group dynamics), yet this quickly falls short in larger groups with weaker social bonds. In other words, our biological self interest has not evolved to keep up with societal advances.

E.g. I think our problems are rooted in selfishness. And the major world religions and philosophies all wrestle with self and self-interest, and how to die to self or generally put others first. For the ancient Greek philosophers the "Good Life" was really about the life worth living, not owning a house and or taking a vacation every year, or whatever most moderns think it means.

But high minded ancient Greek philosophers whose wisdom has survived through Millenia hardly represent the whole of society at that time.

Likewise, the high minded philosophers of today aren't exactly preaching detached homes in the suburbs and two SUVs as the path to enlightenment.

You can't compare apples to oranges and say that they used to have it right in the past.

Mostly agree, though I would argue that there are plenty of people who believe a house in the burbs and two SUVs are the path to enlightenment, aka the American Dream. You may not regard them as high minded, but that's your value judgement (which I happen to agree with) though many in our polarized nation would disagree.

And I'm not saying people in the past necessarily had everything right, clearly they didn't. But rather we are too eager to discard the past as irrelevant or completely outdated while assuming our vision of progress is correct. When, in fact, humanity has long struggled with what "progress" means, and past generations didn't get it right, nor will we because what I think is good is tangled up with what I think is good for me.

I never said all high minded people are against consumerism. I said there are plenty of high minded philosophers today who are.

I also don't discard the importance of the past. I've been reading history and anthropology since I was a child. What I don't believe is that the words of the ancient Greek philosophers somehow represents the overall values of the people at the time. That personal possessions weren't important to human beings in 800BC, that power wasn't corrupt, etc.

None of my reading of that time period suggest that.

Again, agreed. But the fact that those thinkers were largely ignored (or killed even) by their contemporaries should give us pause about how confident we are in our own definitions of progress. It's like picking stocks: easy to spot the winners in hindsight, but doing it in the moment is far trickier.

Where did I say anything about progress?
I believe my first response to this thread said something along the lines of "of course there are issues and there always have been issues"

My only comment on the matter was that you can't compare the average American with an ancient Greek philosopher whose wisdom has survived Millenia.

[Metalcat]

I also don't discard the importance of the past. I've been reading history and anthropology since I was a child. What I don't believe is that the words of the ancient Greek philosophers somehow represents the overall values of the people at the time. That personal possessions weren't important to human beings in 800BC, that power wasn't corrupt, etc.

If I can try rephrasing what you said to see if I understand your point correctly, I understand you you to saying that people who have interesting and counter-intuitive views about what lead to a good life were more likely to 1) write them down in the first place 2) their writing was more likely to be copied and shared and survive to the present day, while the greek farmer who felt that the good life consisted of a stone house without gaps to let the wind blow through, having enough cows they could kill and roast one every week and being able to afford to drink wine every night would be less likely to write it down (because it feels obvious) and if they did write it down, people might be less likely to read, copy, and save their writing because in any given era plenty of contemporaries would be making the same case.

Or TL;DR The ancient writings that survive are a nonrandom sample of the thoughts written down in those eras and the thoughts written down in those eras were a nonrandom sample of what people were actually thinking.

Yeah, pretty much.

Whatever brilliants minds of today that are quoted in thousands of years from now are probably not very representative of the sentiment of the current masses.

I've read so much history, it all seems to boil down to the same nonsense regardless of how brilliant some of the philosophy is.

[GuitarStv]

1. TV-media - I wonder if anyone has ever studied the resulting impact of an individual's psyche from watching hour after hour of extreme violence, sex, horror films, and crimes against humanity?  And what can be said of the innumerous hidden motives found in movies, other programming, and advertising which focuses on sales over the welfare of the community.

Small anecdote here.

So, my wife and I were watching the (mini)series 'Don't Fuck With Cats' about Lucas Magnotta a few weeks ago (somehow, I totally missed hearing anything about him even though I lived and worked in Toronto during his most famous time).  Anyhoo, for anyone who doesn't know he was a messed up dude who cruelly killed some animals and put the videos online and then threatened to/moved on to killing a person.  And he killed the person pretty brutally too.

It really stood out to me that every person being interviewed and shown on the show was WAY more broken up about the deaths of the animals (crying, couldn't speak, visible loss of control) as opposed to the death of the person.  And then I was thinking about myself . . . and I was way more disturbed with the death of the animals than the person, and started thinking about why that was the case.

My conclusion was that it's probably due to the huge number of deaths/murders of people we're exposed to over our lives.  Contrast that to a cute puppy or kitten - never ever, ever would you see them killed on a TV show.  Hence the difference in emotional impact.  The violence definitely desensitizes you . . . even if you don't really think it does.

[jrhampt]

1. TV-media - I wonder if anyone has ever studied the resulting impact of an individual's psyche from watching hour after hour of extreme violence, sex, horror films, and crimes against humanity?  And what can be said of the innumerous hidden motives found in movies, other programming, and advertising which focuses on sales over the welfare of the community.

Small anecdote here.

So, my wife and I were watching the (mini)series 'Don't Fuck With Cats' about Lucas Magnotta a few weeks ago (somehow, I totally missed hearing anything about him even though I lived and worked in Toronto during his most famous time).  Anyhoo, for anyone who doesn't know he was a messed up dude who cruelly killed some animals and put the videos online and then threatened to/moved on to killing a person.  And he killed the person pretty brutally too.

It really stood out to me that every person being interviewed and shown on the show was WAY more broken up about the deaths of the animals (crying, couldn't speak, visible loss of control) as opposed to the death of the person.  And then I was thinking about myself . . . and I was way more disturbed with the death of the animals than the person, and started thinking about why that was the case.

My conclusion was that it's probably due to the huge number of deaths/murders of people we're exposed to over our lives.  Contrast that to a cute puppy or kitten - never ever, ever would you see them killed on a TV show.  Hence the difference in emotional impact.  The violence definitely desensitizes you . . . even if you don't really think it does.

To me violence against animals is so disturbing because they are so helpless and can’t speak for themselves, and we are supposed to be their custodians.  The power imbalance is such that it’s almost like killing a child vs an adult.  Both are disturbing but killing a child is worse.

[Metalcat]

1. TV-media - I wonder if anyone has ever studied the resulting impact of an individual's psyche from watching hour after hour of extreme violence, sex, horror films, and crimes against humanity?  And what can be said of the innumerous hidden motives found in movies, other programming, and advertising which focuses on sales over the welfare of the community.

Small anecdote here.

So, my wife and I were watching the (mini)series 'Don't Fuck With Cats' about Lucas Magnotta a few weeks ago (somehow, I totally missed hearing anything about him even though I lived and worked in Toronto during his most famous time).  Anyhoo, for anyone who doesn't know he was a messed up dude who cruelly killed some animals and put the videos online and then threatened to/moved on to killing a person.  And he killed the person pretty brutally too.

It really stood out to me that every person being interviewed and shown on the show was WAY more broken up about the deaths of the animals (crying, couldn't speak, visible loss of control) as opposed to the death of the person.  And then I was thinking about myself . . . and I was way more disturbed with the death of the animals than the person, and started thinking about why that was the case.

My conclusion was that it's probably due to the huge number of deaths/murders of people we're exposed to over our lives.  Contrast that to a cute puppy or kitten - never ever, ever would you see them killed on a TV show.  Hence the difference in emotional impact.  The violence definitely desensitizes you . . . even if you don't really think it does.

This is more of a visceral response than a cognitive one, so I'm not sure this is a sign of our times as much as it is a feature of human reflexive behaviour.

Humans aren't fundamentally averse to human on human violence. We're actually drawn to it and historically always have been. We're quite entertained by adult humans hurting other human adults, see sports, movies, and gladiators of old.

We have to cognitively connect with the humanity of a person or situation for adult violence to upset us.

I lived right by where Jun Lin's body parts were found, Luka killed him just a few blocks from my home.

Because I was cognitively connected to the adults involved being my literal neighbours, I had an intense visceral reaction to it at the time. When I found out about the cats, I was like "of course this guy killed cats first". It didn't upset me more, it just fit with the insanity of the situation.

The biggest evidence for this being a reflexive behaviour, not an acquired one, is that you see this type of contrast in children. They can be pretty comfortable with the concept of adult death by violence, but they respond with visceral repulsion to violence against children or pets, which are psychologically child-like in their dependence and vulnerability.

That's why it's so predictive of adult killing if a child is okay with animals being hurt. It's so anathema to healthy human functioning. Meanwhile, it's often nothing for a child to glibly talk about shooting people dead. The abstract killing of a person they have no connection to often doesn't bother them.

If the effect was a function of desensitization, then we wouldn't see this effect in children, and we would see near total indifference to human violence among older generations, whom would also inevitably desensitize about violence to animals and children as well. That's not the case.

[Psychstache]

1. TV-media - I wonder if anyone has ever studied the resulting impact of an individual's psyche from watching hour after hour of extreme violence, sex, horror films, and crimes against humanity?  And what can be said of the innumerous hidden motives found in movies, other programming, and advertising which focuses on sales over the welfare of the community.

Small anecdote here.

So, my wife and I were watching the (mini)series 'Don't Fuck With Cats' about Lucas Magnotta a few weeks ago (somehow, I totally missed hearing anything about him even though I lived and worked in Toronto during his most famous time).  Anyhoo, for anyone who doesn't know he was a messed up dude who cruelly killed some animals and put the videos online and then threatened to/moved on to killing a person.  And he killed the person pretty brutally too.

It really stood out to me that every person being interviewed and shown on the show was WAY more broken up about the deaths of the animals (crying, couldn't speak, visible loss of control) as opposed to the death of the person.  And then I was thinking about myself . . . and I was way more disturbed with the death of the animals than the person, and started thinking about why that was the case.

My conclusion was that it's probably due to the huge number of deaths/murders of people we're exposed to over our lives.  Contrast that to a cute puppy or kitten - never ever, ever would you see them killed on a TV show.  Hence the difference in emotional impact.  The violence definitely desensitizes you . . . even if you don't really think it does.

This is more of a visceral response than a cognitive one, so I'm not sure this is a sign of our times as much as it is a feature of human reflexive behaviour.

Humans aren't fundamentally averse to human on human violence. We're actually drawn to it and historically always have been. We're quite entertained by adult humans hurting other human adults, see sports, movies, and gladiators of old.

We have to cognitively connect with the humanity of a person or situation for adult violence to upset us.

I lived right by where Jun Lin's body parts were found, Luka killed him just a few blocks from my home.

Because I was cognitively connected to the adults involved being my literal neighbours, I had an intense visceral reaction to it at the time. When I found out about the cats, I was like "of course this guy killed cats first". It didn't upset me more, it just fit with the insanity of the situation.

The biggest evidence for this being a reflexive behaviour, not an acquired one, is that you see this type of contrast in children. They can be pretty comfortable with the concept of adult death by violence, but they respond with visceral repulsion to violence against children or pets, which are psychologically child-like in their dependence and vulnerability.

That's why it's so predictive of adult killing if a child is okay with animals being hurt. It's so anathema to healthy human functioning. Meanwhile, it's often nothing for a child to glibly talk about shooting people dead. The abstract killing of a person they have no connection to often doesn't bother them.

If the effect was a function of desensitization, then we wouldn't see this effect in children, and we would see near total indifference to human violence among older generations, whom would also inevitably desensitize about violence to animals and children as well. That's not the case.

I think another issue is the cognitive bias of the 'Just World Phenomenon'. When adult humans are murdered, our brains can always look for ways to rationalize it away (ex. when a woman is murdered by her long-term partner, there will suddenly be questions about the actions she did/did not take and how they contributed to her death). With animals, there is no real way to hold onto the fallacy (except with Pitbulls, people seem to have no trouble wanting them put down for their 'bad genes').

[Sid Hoffman]

I have to agree with others that it comes down to how you measure it. For your point #5, I think that's a great perspective and it's the very reason you'll get a different answer and a different idea of what the solution is from every person.

For me, I'd call point #5 (which you called guidance) as purpose instead. I would say that for so many people, they are lost because they lack a purpose or worse still, they decide their purpose is one thing but it's a hopelessly unachievable thing that leaves them broken and/or disillusioned after they fail at what they declared was their purpose. In fact I think it fits in with what EvenSteven called a "lack of God". That is, after all, a source of purpose for people and since few in the developed world believe in God nowadays, that's very few people who look for purpose in any form of intelligence higher than their own.

I also think we see things go in waves. Like when you consider thousands of years of history, some things are getting way better (slavery is rare, women have many more rights, disease is treatable) and certain things like wildlife management, the fact there's no wilderness areas in western Europe anymore, or the mind-boggling air and water pollution in the two highest population countries on Earth are now are bad beyond measure compared to any point in human history. But I also think we're headed towards the first decline of humans in world history within the next 100-200 years.

That's something to really think about: that for maybe 50,000 years we've continually increased in population and within just 150 years, might permanently be decreasing in population. Is it because of ... a lack of purpose? There's no reason to have kids, if you don't require them for any purpose. And is it a bad thing if humanity just falls and falls in population until it's at, say, 10%, maybe even 1% of today's population? I think as long as areas can be returned to wilderness once uninhabited that's potentially a good thing. I believe this partly because I believe one of our purposes as people is to take good care of the Earth, but that's just me. What irony, if we take care of the Earth better because it's our purpose, but do so because nobody knows what their purpose is.

[Metalcat]

I think another issue is the cognitive bias of the 'Just World Phenomenon'. When adult humans are murdered, our brains can always look for ways to rationalize it away (ex. when a woman is murdered by her long-term partner, there will suddenly be questions about the actions she did/did not take and how they contributed to her death). With animals, there is no real way to hold onto the fallacy (except with Pitbulls, people seem to have no trouble wanting them put down for their 'bad genes').

Well, two things, for many people Pitbulls aren't categorized as innocent and dependent pets, they're seen as a dangerous abomination masquerading as a pet, putting other innocent dogs and children at risk. Whether accurate or not, this is how they're categorized.

Also, euthanasia of dogs isn't coded as killing. It's one thing to be okay with your neighbour's "dangerous" beast being removed and euthanized, it's another to learn that your neighbour bludgeoned his dog to death with a hammer.

It all comes down to coding and categorizations. We're either very, very okay with killing or we're very, very very not okay with with killing, and which reaction we have depends on very subconscious factors, which aren't particularly rational a lot of the time.

We have the reaction, and we *then* attempt to justify it with some kind of explanation, because we humans are not rational thinkers, we are rationalizing thinkers.

[bwall]

I agree with attacking the root of the problem, however many times those we hire to address the issues get elected by promising free stuff rather than promoting personal responsibility.

I would be very interested in hearing how personal responsibility will help solve the problems mentioned by the OP.

[bmjohnson35]

If you use measures such as human longevity, housing, infant mortality, availability of quality healthcare, and other measurable attributes of society, we have seen significant progressing over the past 500 years or so.  Of course, we haven't been to kind to our planet along the way, but at least we seem to be aware of it and we are trying to make changes to address them, even if it's rather slow and possibly too late.

If you are talking about humanity the species, we are about the same as hundreds of years ago.  We possess roughly the same fundamental strengths and weeknesses. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

For me, I'd call point #5 (which you called guidance) as purpose instead. I would say that for so many people, they are lost because they lack a purpose or worse still, they decide their purpose is one thing but it's a hopelessly unachievable thing that leaves them broken and/or disillusioned after they fail at what they declared was their purpose. In fact I think it fits in with what EvenSteven called a "lack of God". That is, after all, a source of purpose for people and since few in the developed world believe in God nowadays, that's very few people who look for purpose in any form of intelligence higher than their own.

As an atheist here  is what I think of human purpose in its largest sense.

Mankind's  purpose, its proper function, which for me  cannot be preordained, is to deploy  its  faculties in search of  truth, solutions, " the best answer," "the right answer," etc.

A virtuous thing fulfills its function so we are at our  best  when we exert ourselves thus.

And since this exertion is collaborative concerning major issues, it is  "bigger" or "higher" than the exertion of any single individual.

This is the way of enlightenment and human progress.

[John Galt incarnate!]

If you use measures such as human longevity, housing, infant mortality, availability of quality healthcare, and other measurable attributes of society, we have seen significant progressing over the past 500 years or so.  Of course, we haven't been to kind to our planet along the way, but at least we seem to be aware of it and we are trying to make changes to address them, even if it's rather slow and possibly too late.

If you are talking about humanity the species, we are about the same as hundreds of years ago.  We possess roughly the same fundamental strengths and weeknesses.

Alas, currently estimated climate tipping points will be reached, and worse, exceeded.



Elon Musk Says EVs Will Double World's Need for Electricitywww.thetruthaboutcars.com › 2020/12 › elon-musk-sa...
Dec 1, 2020 — Renewable energy sources may also prove insufficient in providing the kind of power necessary — potentially requiring countries to double down


"Some individual feedbacks may be strong enough to trigger tipping points on their own. A 2019 study predicts that if greenhouse gases reach three times the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that stratocumulus clouds could abruptly disperse, contributing an additional 8 degrees Celsius of warming."


As Climate Change Worsens, A Cascade of Tipping Points ...e360.yale.edu › features › as-climate-changes-worsens-...
Dec 5, 2019 — The potential tipping points come in three forms: runaway loss of ice sheets that accelerate sea level rise; forests and other natural carbon stores such as permafrost releasing those stores into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), accelerating warming; and the disabling of the ocean circulation system.


Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against - Naturewww.nature.com › comment
Nov 27, 2019 — As well as undermining our life-support system, biosphere tipping points can trigger abrupt carbon release back to the atmosphere. ... Permafrost across the Arctic is beginning to irreversibly thaw and release carbon dioxide and methane — a greenhouse gas that is around 30 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.

[bmjohnson35]

If you use measures such as human longevity, housing, infant mortality, availability of quality healthcare, and other measurable attributes of society, we have seen significant progressing over the past 500 years or so.  Of course, we haven't been to kind to our planet along the way, but at least we seem to be aware of it and we are trying to make changes to address them, even if it's rather slow and possibly too late.

If you are talking about humanity the species, we are about the same as hundreds of years ago.  We possess roughly the same fundamental strengths and weeknesses.

Alas, currently estimated climate tipping points will be reached, and worse, exceeded.



Elon Musk Says EVs Will Double World's Need for Electricitywww.thetruthaboutcars.com › 2020/12 › elon-musk-sa...
Dec 1, 2020 — Renewable energy sources may also prove insufficient in providing the kind of power necessary — potentially requiring countries to double down


"Some individual feedbacks may be strong enough to trigger tipping points on their own. A 2019 study predicts that if greenhouse gases reach three times the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that stratocumulus clouds could abruptly disperse, contributing an additional 8 degrees Celsius of warming."


As Climate Change Worsens, A Cascade of Tipping Points ...e360.yale.edu › features › as-climate-changes-worsens-...
Dec 5, 2019 — The potential tipping points come in three forms: runaway loss of ice sheets that accelerate sea level rise; forests and other natural carbon stores such as permafrost releasing those stores into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), accelerating warming; and the disabling of the ocean circulation system.


Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against - Naturewww.nature.com › comment
Nov 27, 2019 — As well as undermining our life-support system, biosphere tipping points can trigger abrupt carbon release back to the atmosphere. ... Permafrost across the Arctic is beginning to irreversibly thaw and release carbon dioxide and methane — a greenhouse gas that is around 30 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.

Yes the climate issues are very much concerning, but I am making an effort to be a bit less cynical these days. 

[Metalcat]

If you use measures such as human longevity, housing, infant mortality, availability of quality healthcare, and other measurable attributes of society, we have seen significant progressing over the past 500 years or so.  Of course, we haven't been to kind to our planet along the way, but at least we seem to be aware of it and we are trying to make changes to address them, even if it's rather slow and possibly too late.

If you are talking about humanity the species, we are about the same as hundreds of years ago.  We possess roughly the same fundamental strengths and weeknesses.

Alas, currently estimated climate tipping points will be reached, and worse, exceeded.



Elon Musk Says EVs Will Double World's Need for Electricitywww.thetruthaboutcars.com › 2020/12 › elon-musk-sa...
Dec 1, 2020 — Renewable energy sources may also prove insufficient in providing the kind of power necessary — potentially requiring countries to double down


"Some individual feedbacks may be strong enough to trigger tipping points on their own. A 2019 study predicts that if greenhouse gases reach three times the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that stratocumulus clouds could abruptly disperse, contributing an additional 8 degrees Celsius of warming."


As Climate Change Worsens, A Cascade of Tipping Points ...e360.yale.edu › features › as-climate-changes-worsens-...
Dec 5, 2019 — The potential tipping points come in three forms: runaway loss of ice sheets that accelerate sea level rise; forests and other natural carbon stores such as permafrost releasing those stores into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), accelerating warming; and the disabling of the ocean circulation system.


Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against - Naturewww.nature.com › comment
Nov 27, 2019 — As well as undermining our life-support system, biosphere tipping points can trigger abrupt carbon release back to the atmosphere. ... Permafrost across the Arctic is beginning to irreversibly thaw and release carbon dioxide and methane — a greenhouse gas that is around 30 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.

Yes the climate issues are very much concerning, but I am making an effort to be a bit less cynical these days.

Check out Solutions Journalism Network, which is curated news stories that include solutions, not just doom and gloom.

[HPstache]

Religion has a really good word for what you are trying to describe/figure out... it's sin.  The Christian perspective is that all humans are born as sinful creatures and that sinful nature that is ingrained in everyone and is why when you look at society as a whole you see all of these problems, it's the root of the problem.  I know that not everyone is religious, but when I see a thread like this it's painfully obvious that there is a simple word that has been used by religion for millennia to describe this deep philosophical question your are grappling with.

In general, I'd say that as a society we are progressing.

[fuzzy math]

Mixed bag.

We have great technology to feed the world, travel and innovate but poison the planet and pillage money using those technologies. However, cool Elon rockets!! Winner to be determined still...

We have greater access across the globe to knowledge and literacy than in prior times. However, Social media is now knowledge and textbooks cease to exist. Knowledge is clearly losing this battle.

[Cranky]

I don’t think people  are all that much different than they’ve ever been.’our expectations may be a bit higher, though.

Also, are babies “innocent”? Babies totally want what they want and they want it instantly. They are pretty self centered.

[Moustachienne]

Check out Solutions Journalism Network, which is curated news stories that include solutions, not just doom and gloom.

Great site.  Thanks!

[StashingAway]

2) I don't think this has to be specific to mothers. I do think children tend to get less one on one attention from their parents (combined) than they did in prior generations. As human labor becomes less valuable and TV/social media continue to raise the bar for what a normal amount of prosperity is, fewer and fewer families feel like their can afford for either parent to stay home with children for more than a few weeks after birth.

En mass in the western world, kids are actually getting lots MORE time with fathers these days:

https://www.mother.ly/news/millennial-dads-spend-more-time-with-their-kids

[fuzzy math]

Check out Solutions Journalism Network, which is curated news stories that include solutions, not just doom and gloom.

Ooh, my peak nihilism had made it nearly impossible for me to read news articles any more. This might be helpful!

[GuitarStv]

2) I don't think this has to be specific to mothers. I do think children tend to get less one on one attention from their parents (combined) than they did in prior generations. As human labor becomes less valuable and TV/social media continue to raise the bar for what a normal amount of prosperity is, fewer and fewer families feel like their can afford for either parent to stay home with children for more than a few weeks after birth.

En mass in the western world, kids are actually getting lots MORE time with fathers these days:

https://www.mother.ly/news/millennial-dads-spend-more-time-with-their-kids

So THAT's the problem . . .



:P

[StashingAway]

2) I don't think this has to be specific to mothers. I do think children tend to get less one on one attention from their parents (combined) than they did in prior generations. As human labor becomes less valuable and TV/social media continue to raise the bar for what a normal amount of prosperity is, fewer and fewer families feel like their can afford for either parent to stay home with children for more than a few weeks after birth.

En mass in the western world, kids are actually getting lots MORE time with fathers these days:

https://www.mother.ly/news/millennial-dads-spend-more-time-with-their-kids

So THAT's the problem . . .



:P

Also, with the exception of the US, there are pretty dramatic increases in governmental child support over the last 40 years; from things like 1+ years of maternity/paternity leave, early pre-school, etc.

That's not to discount the rise in single family parenting in low income families and the major influence that social media is having on children's psyche, but we can't just say "it feels worse, so it must be". Women are getting educated in more place, people are starving less, the climate is changing dramatically, it's the end of the world as we know it!

[EricEng]

I read your list of things you see as the root of all societies problems as:

1) Violence and sex on TV
2) Women in the work force
3) Drugs
4) Fat people
5) Lack of enough God

Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but I don't think I agree with your assessment of either what societies problems are or what their root cause is.

You hit the arguments dead center. Looks like common Fox News talking points.  This whole post seems trolling.  Should be in off topic.

[PlantBased]

Spiritual guidance is the answer?? Are you kidding me? You do realize that spiritual guidance is and always has been one of the key tools for war and oppression right? For, like, ALL of recorded human history.

I'm not saying that spirituality is a bad thing, but organizing it and giving it power has not worked out well for humanity historically.

People confuse religion with "being spiritual" or "spiritual guidance",  religion is interpretation colored by an individual's background and understanding, confounded by misinterpretations from the past.  WWII had it's beginnings in religion, and the crimes committed in the name of religion seem to be endless.   Someone once wrote the greatest failing in religion is "paid preaching".  If money were removed from the equation what percentage would remain... 1% maybe? When a person truly loves a subject they discuss it for nothing, Socrates mentioned this in "The Last Days of Socrates".  He once said that he would have paid to have people listen to him talk if it came to that... fortunately it never did.  Now Socrates would make for a good source of guidance... it's very rare to find that in someone, but that does not mean it does not exist.

If someone wants knowledge why not read, and come to your own conclusions instead of being told what to think.  Let's take one example, of the thousands we might find.   Someone interpreted the bible to say, when a person dies they go to heaven or hell.  Where is this written?  And since that will never be found, where and when did this interpretation originate?  We might even ask why.


@mozar "The root of humanity's issues, in my opinion, is a contingent of people who feel they have a right to more than everyone else, a right to make others suffer, and a right to destroy as they see fit. These people have trillions of dollars in reserve to fight progress."
How does a "contingent of people" come to this understanding, were they born with it?

@EvenSteven  "4) Fat people" , not quiet.  A poor diet / food choice leads to obesity.  In the 1970's obesity was very rare, why have things changed so much?   "2) Women in the work force", again not quiet.  How do we get to the point where a woman sees climbing the corporate ladder to be more important then the care of a young child?  When an elderly parent takes their final look back on their life, will they most value the money and high ranking they achieved, or the welfare of those they love, or could have loved?

"if it is true that average IQ is declining"  - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effects-of-obesity-on-dementia-brain-function-and-fertility/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=2b73b96def-RSS_VIDEO_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-2b73b96def-24002249&mc_cid=2b73b96def&mc_eid=9d51242d4b  no doubt you will find the same with drug and alcohol use.  And the greater problem is the affect of obesity (diet), smoking, drug and alcohol in the parent(s), and then how this effects the mind / body of the unborn child. What is happening to future generations?

[John Galt incarnate!]

Spiritual guidance is the answer?? Are you kidding me? You do realize that spiritual guidance is and always has been one of the key tools for war and oppression right? For, like, ALL of recorded human history.

I'm not saying that spirituality is a bad thing, but organizing it and giving it power has not worked out well for humanity historically.

People confuse religion with being spiritual or "spiritual guidance",  religion is interpretation colored by an individual's background and understanding.  WWII had it's beginnings in religion, and the crimes committed in the name of religion seem to be endless.   Someone once wrote the greatest failing in religion is "paid preaching".

Reportedly, L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, said something to the effect of "I don't want to write pulp for 7 cents per word. I want to get rich. I'm going to start a religion."


When a person truly loves a subject they discuss it for nothing, Socrates mentioned this in "The Last Days of Socrates".  He once said that he would have paid to have people listen to him talk if it came to that... fortunately it never did.  Now Socrates would make for a good source of guidance... it's very rare to find that in someone, but that does not mean it does not exist.

If someone wants knowledge why not read, and come to your own conclusions instead of being told what to think.  Let's take one example, of the thousands we might find.   Someone interpreted the bible to say, when a person dies they go to heaven or hell.  Where is this written?  And since that will never be found, where and when did this interpretation originate?  We might even ask why.

OP, I've thought about why.

The psychology of belief in God/Heaven/Hell  is an interesting subject.

 I think the coffin's dark finitude terrifies so  one of the reasons for Heaven's  concoction is to soften the ineluctable fact of  death; Heaven  is  much more inviting and promising than a cold, buried box full of our remains.


In Walden Thoreau wrote “The mass of   men lead lives of quiet desperation." When someone dies it is sometimes said that "They've gone to their reward," meaning they went to Heaven.

I think belief in Heaven is a compensatory, psychological  palliative, an expectation of a wonderful afterlife in Heaven, a deserved "payback" to observant believers who live a hard and difficult life in the here and now.


@mozar "The root of humanity's issues, in my opinion, is a contingent of people who feel they have a right to more than everyone else, a right to make others suffer, and a right to destroy as they see fit. These people have trillions of dollars in reserve to fight progress."
How does a "contingent of people" come to this understanding, were they born with it?

@EvenSteven  "4) Fat people" , not quiet.  A poor diet / food choice leads to obesity.  In the 1970's obesity was very rare, why have things changed so much?

"if it is true that average IQ is declining"  - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effects-of-obesity-on-dementia-brain-function-and-fertility/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=2b73b96def-RSS_VIDEO_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-2b73b96def-24002249&mc_cid=2b73b96def&mc_eid=9d51242d4b  no doubt you will find the same with drug and alcohol use.  And the greater problem is the affect of obesity, smoking, drug and alcohol in the parent(s), and then how this effects the mind / body of the unborn child.

[Metalcat]

Spiritual guidance is the answer?? Are you kidding me? You do realize that spiritual guidance is and always has been one of the key tools for war and oppression right? For, like, ALL of recorded human history.

I'm not saying that spirituality is a bad thing, but organizing it and giving it power has not worked out well for humanity historically.

People confuse religion with being spiritual or "spiritual guidance",  religion is interpretation colored by an individual's background and understanding.  WWII had it's beginnings in religion, and the crimes committed in the name of religion seem to be endless.   Someone once wrote the greatest failing in religion is "paid preaching". When a person truly loves a subject they discuss it for nothing, Socrates mentioned this in "The Last Days of Socrates".  He once said that he would have paid to have people listen to him talk if it came to that... fortunately it never did.  Now Socrates would make for a good source of guidance... it's very rare to find that in someone, but that does not mean it does not exist.

If someone wants knowledge why not read, and come to your own conclusions instead of being told what to think.  Let's take one example, of the thousands we might find.   Someone interpreted the bible to say, when a person dies they go to heaven or hell.  Where is this written?  And since that will never be found, where and when did this interpretation originate?  We might even ask why.


@mozar "The root of humanity's issues, in my opinion, is a contingent of people who feel they have a right to more than everyone else, a right to make others suffer, and a right to destroy as they see fit. These people have trillions of dollars in reserve to fight progress."
How does a "contingent of people" come to this understanding, were they born with it?

@EvenSteven  "4) Fat people" , not quiet.  A poor diet / food choice leads to obesity.  In the 1970's obesity was very rare, why have things changed so much?

"if it is true that average IQ is declining"  - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effects-of-obesity-on-dementia-brain-function-and-fertility/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=2b73b96def-RSS_VIDEO_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-2b73b96def-24002249&mc_cid=2b73b96def&mc_eid=9d51242d4b  no doubt you will find the same with drug and alcohol use.  And the greater problem is the affect of obesity, smoking, drug and alcohol in the parent(s), and then how this effects the mind of the unborn child.

Oh, so who gets to decide what spiritual guidance counts as good and what is bad??? You?

You say that what the world need to solve it's ills is spiritual guidance and then quality that a lot of the spiritual guidance out there is garbage.

So what is it? Do we need more spiritual guidance, or do we need more of the particular spiritual guidance that *you personally* think is appropriate?

Or are we supposed to read and decide for ourselves? Because that goes directly against your statement that we need more spiritual guidance.

[PlantBased]

Oh, so who gets to decide what spiritual guidance counts as good and what is bad??? You?

  Some say, all have the same Father.  Why not take your questions directly to Him?

Some people think giving money to beggars is a good thing, but would this not simply encourage dependency, and in effect be a heinous crime?   What prevents the beggar from earning his own living?  It's true he might start off poor (could be wealth, or any other quality), but with effort and persistence the goal is reached one step at a time.

[Metalcat]

Oh, so who gets to decide what spiritual guidance counts as good and what is bad??? You?

  Some say, all have the same Father.  Why not take your questions directly to Him?

Some people think giving money to beggars is a good thing, but would this not simply encourage dependency, and in effect be a heinous crime?   What prevents the beggar from earning his own living?  It's true he might start off poor (could be wealth, or any other quality), but with effort and persistence the goal is reached one step at a time.

Oh, so only monotheistic spiritual guidance is okay.

Good to know.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Oh, so who gets to decide what spiritual guidance counts as good and what is bad??? You?

  Some say, all have the same Father.  Why not take your questions directly to Him?

Some people think giving money to beggars is a good thing, but would this not simply encourage dependency, and in effect be a heinous crime?   What prevents the beggar from earning his own living?  It's true he might start off poor (could be wealth, or any other quality), but with effort and persistence the goal is reached one step at a time.

OP, do you think that atheists are capable of  spirituality?

[Psychstache]

Oh, so who gets to decide what spiritual guidance counts as good and what is bad??? You?

  Some say, all have the same Father.  Why not take your questions directly to Him?

Some people think giving money to beggars is a good thing, but would this not simply encourage dependency, and in effect be a heinous crime?   What prevents the beggar from earning his own living?  It's true he might start off poor (could be wealth, or any other quality), but with effort and persistence the goal is reached one step at a time.

Oh, so only monotheistic spiritual guidance is okay.

Good to know.

Another nonbeliever. Perhaps oneday you will allow the warm, slimy light of His noodly appendage to reach you. All Hail the FSM. Ra men.

[Sayyadina]

"4) Fat people" , not quiet.  A poor diet / food choice leads to obesity.  In the 1970's obesity was very rare, why have things changed so much?   "2) Women in the work force", again not quiet.  How do we get to the point where a woman sees climbing the corporate ladder to be more important then the care of a young child?  When an elderly parent takes their final look back on their life, will they most value the money and high ranking they achieved, or the welfare of those they love, or could have loved?

How did we get to the point where a man sees climbing the corporate ladder to be more important than the care of a young child? /s

You seem to think that traditional gender roles are something to be lauded, and the loss of them is destroying our society.

My husband is much more patient than I am. He's better with our son. I would go crazy if I had to be on full time baby duty. And I'm much more willing to put up with the frustrations of an engineering job (even though his degree is technically more prestigious, I've always made more) so that the household can retire earlier. If we submitted to our assigned gender roles, we would both be miserable. And that seems like a ridiculous thing to submit ourselves to because someone else thinks the way we've organized our relationship is destructive to society as a whole.

[Metalcat]

Oh, so who gets to decide what spiritual guidance counts as good and what is bad??? You?

  Some say, all have the same Father.  Why not take your questions directly to Him?

Some people think giving money to beggars is a good thing, but would this not simply encourage dependency, and in effect be a heinous crime?   What prevents the beggar from earning his own living?  It's true he might start off poor (could be wealth, or any other quality), but with effort and persistence the goal is reached one step at a time.

Oh, so only monotheistic spiritual guidance is okay.

Good to know.

Another nonbeliever. Perhaps oneday you will allow the warm, slimy light of His noodly appendage to reach you. All Hail the FSM. Ra men.

Lol

Funnily enough, I'm actually a pretty spiritual person.
It's just very personal to me and I don't shove it down people's throats.