- 08 May 2016 05:12
#14677704
In part 2 (viewtopic.php?f=45&t=165186) I argued that we lack community because a person can go to the store, buy enough liquor to drink themselves to death and no one will try to stop him. The typical western response to this kind of criticism would be as follows: apologists would try to conceive of methods by which the government could stop someone from doing that act. They might want to cap how much alcohol someone can buy, either at once or over an extended period of time. They might try to limit the alcohol content of drinks that are sold. They might even try to make the store owner personally liable in the event that someone hurts themselves with his products. Each of those approaches, and probably any other approach that modern western people might suggest, would be inadequate for the following reason: people do not want to live within a structure that blocks them from hurting themselves. By the time they have decided to hurt themselves, the infrastructure is only a minor delay. What people really want is for someone else to be “invested” enough in them that another person would try to stop them from hurting themselves, solely because they care and not because they have to do it. This kind of treatment, received from another, provides us with a form of emotional reassurance that no laws can provide, no matter how well-intentioned they might be.
Let’s consider a related example, this being when New York city attempted to ban large sodas because they were concerned that people were getting too fat. This regulation received widespread mockery and was shut down in half a dozen ways; as it should have been, but if one of us was overweight and we knew a person who tried to keep us from drinking the large soda, we would in a way appreciate it even though we would probably ignore them. The principle of being cared for, not impersonally taken care of, applies to more than just alcohol, or drinks, or food, it probably applies to everything.
When we make a law that protects someone from themselves, the worst possible outcome may be that it works. People cease expressing genuine concern for one another because it’s not necessary and as the saying goes, use it or lose it; this is not a truism but an undisputed genetic principle. When people engage in certain acts it influences their epigenetic makeup. If people have no reason to care then they will not do it and in not caring, the ability to care in of itself can (and seemingly, is) able to become vestigial and atrophied on a biological level. For example, people exposed to large amounts of stress exhibit an epigenetic tendency towards anxiety; their descendants feel more stress. Mice trained to fear something exhibit an increased ability to feel fear (http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memo ... ts-1.14272). It is therefore probably true (and psychological testing on recent generations supports this claim) that people who don’t have a reason to feel empathy will have offspring who feel less empathy. The less empathy people exhibit, the more we try to legislate empathy or "build" it into our infrastructure. Then the next generation arises and seems to care even less than the one before it. Everyone scratches their heads and wonders why this is so, the answer seems obvious but for virtue signaling.
As a religious person, I have seen people struggle with a bible passage which says that people should only give to charity willingly and not under any coercion. It confuses people and does not seem to mesh with the encouragement towards charity that is otherwise present throughout the New Testament. There is a lot of wisdom in traditional texts; perhaps they observed epigenetic influences (see: telegony etc.) without having a fine understanding of those things like we do. It’s unfortunate that we have an understanding of these things and then we ignore them, whereas past peoples did not have a detailed understanding of some of these principles and yet they successfully coped with them.
Let’s consider a related example, this being when New York city attempted to ban large sodas because they were concerned that people were getting too fat. This regulation received widespread mockery and was shut down in half a dozen ways; as it should have been, but if one of us was overweight and we knew a person who tried to keep us from drinking the large soda, we would in a way appreciate it even though we would probably ignore them. The principle of being cared for, not impersonally taken care of, applies to more than just alcohol, or drinks, or food, it probably applies to everything.
When we make a law that protects someone from themselves, the worst possible outcome may be that it works. People cease expressing genuine concern for one another because it’s not necessary and as the saying goes, use it or lose it; this is not a truism but an undisputed genetic principle. When people engage in certain acts it influences their epigenetic makeup. If people have no reason to care then they will not do it and in not caring, the ability to care in of itself can (and seemingly, is) able to become vestigial and atrophied on a biological level. For example, people exposed to large amounts of stress exhibit an epigenetic tendency towards anxiety; their descendants feel more stress. Mice trained to fear something exhibit an increased ability to feel fear (http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memo ... ts-1.14272). It is therefore probably true (and psychological testing on recent generations supports this claim) that people who don’t have a reason to feel empathy will have offspring who feel less empathy. The less empathy people exhibit, the more we try to legislate empathy or "build" it into our infrastructure. Then the next generation arises and seems to care even less than the one before it. Everyone scratches their heads and wonders why this is so, the answer seems obvious but for virtue signaling.
As a religious person, I have seen people struggle with a bible passage which says that people should only give to charity willingly and not under any coercion. It confuses people and does not seem to mesh with the encouragement towards charity that is otherwise present throughout the New Testament. There is a lot of wisdom in traditional texts; perhaps they observed epigenetic influences (see: telegony etc.) without having a fine understanding of those things like we do. It’s unfortunate that we have an understanding of these things and then we ignore them, whereas past peoples did not have a detailed understanding of some of these principles and yet they successfully coped with them.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!
- By QatzelOk
- By Tainari88