|
Many people obsess over the dangers that lurk everywhere in the world. The latest swine flu scare is the forthright example. Media portrayals of it as the next huge disaster pandemic have many people quivering in fear. This flu is merely another ailment that humans have lived with for the entire history of human civilization. Only in modern times have we been able to qualify and quantify such diseases at such a detailed level with in depth analysis.
One of my detested progressions in medicine is the classification of human pathologies. These developments are simply definitions of human traits that people have long dealt with. A prime example is attention deficit disorder. Doctors diagnose a child with ADD and then give them drugs to modify their behaviour. Parents make excuses for raising stupid unruly children by classifying their behaviour as a treatable disease. Classrooms are pressured to divert resources from healthy, obedient children to focus attention on kids who can’t sit still. In a more classic era of pediatric medicine, attention deficit disorder is what people would call a disruptive, trouble-prone child in need of discipline.
Now this trait does not restrict a child’s development into a healthy, productive adult without the use of medication. However, it may simply mean they perform less than desirably in a traditional classroom setting. People are too prone these days to fit everyone in the same mould, from the academically inclined kids to the more activity based, hands-on learners. A different kind of education would better benefit these children rather than drugging them up and forcing more mature kids to tolerate their nuisance.
This is a common problem among “civilized” societies today, in trying to assert an equal opportunity for all. This may be a commendable vision in a perfect world, but resources are limited in the societies we live in. Take for example the initiative to raise money for charities that give aid to poor African countries. Why do we even bother? Activists make posters and videos about the plight of poor malnourished African children. They like to complain that developed countries are uncaring and are blind to the hardships of these people. The suffering of these people is undeniable. But the approach to take to address this issue may deserve rethinking.
Some people feel better by donating a portion of their money to charities that supposedly help these countries. It is a common observation that citizens of any given society are never satisfied with the way their community is governed. A blatant source for this can be found locally in the thread about “What do you like about your country?” on TL recently. It comes as no surprise that people love to complain about the corruption, ineffectiveness and incompetence that plagues their government. These sentiments are easily echoed by most citizens in a society. It is a difficult task indeed to find an example of someone who actually commends what their government is doing, rather than focus on its shortfalls.
If a society is truly struggling to meet the proper demands of its citizens, shouldn’t it first focus on improving their own situation before helping that of others? By diverting resources to struggling countries, one’s own community is neglected from the optimal enhancement it might otherwise enjoy.
This creates a bit of conflict for some, whether to choose to fix up their own community or that of someone else’s who may be struggling more. When presented in this light, I’m sure the politically sensitive people would admit that they are lucky enough to live in their own society and would not mind sacrificing some of their gifts to help the less fortunate.
As I have expressed previously, the way current governments are set up are inefficient and frustrating to deal with. This leads to the gripes of their citizens, who quickly forget how good they actually have t. With a workable public infrastructure and stable legal system and economy, most societies are able to get by reasonably well. This seems to be the main problem for many developing areas: the lack of order and perhaps coupled with a shortage of natural resources.
I get the feeling that sometime in the coming future, our world as we know it and its securities and makeup will not be sustainable. We are well versed in the possible doomsday scenarios that will inevitably plague. Here is a list off the top of my head: global warming to create an inhospitable planet, world war 3 with the use of nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy all forms of modern civilization, starvation of vital natural resources, overpopulation and running out of food, pollution that ruins the planet, major disease epidemic to wipe out most of the world population. Knowing the trend that the world is taking, I would expect one of these disasters to eventually hit earth and wipe out most of modern civilization.
It is only after such a calamity would people be willing to accept radical changes to their known and established ways of life. Otherwise, as usual, the complainers and protesters get in the way of progress.
I have a story about one time in grade 10 civics class. The assignment was giving the pros and cons of three major forms of decision making: democracy, authoritarian, and full consent (not plausible to get anything done). Despite the obvious bias in the classroom that democracy was the “best” method, I wrote beside authoritarian, “has the potential to be the most powerful and efficient form of governance”. When the teacher handed back the assignments, (only marked for completion I think), I was amused to see “???” scribbled beside my comment.
Everyone is quick to point out the flaws in an authoritarian structure: that power corrupts the ruler. But is it really that difficult to consider there may be one person in the innumerable sea of candidates that is capable of competently, insightfully provide fair ruling in a given community? That such a person holds such strong moral integrity to be able to resist the temptations of corruption?
This is what I am waiting for, some apocalypse scenario to enable the dramatic change of world direction and policy. I am not condoning that the world should enter into an end war and wipe out all known civilization, nor do I find pleasure in the great pain and suffering of deaths of loved ones by disease and preventable cause. However, it seems that in due time, such a calamity is bound to strike. The concept of an incurable supervirus is not difficult to fathom at all. A fresh palette to start off from seems irresistible. Being the closet emo myself (careful word choice to alleviate focus on perhaps a more serious condition), I would not really mind if I were one of the victims of such a cleansing. I embrace the end, whether I am part of it or not.
I anticipate a large chunk of responses telling me to go out and explore the world and see for myself the actual state these less fortunate people are in. Perhaps that would humanize me to their plight and enable me to sympathize more for this cause. Could it not be possible I have had ample exposure to people in such situations, but regardless maintain my uncaring stance? Whether that is truly the case I may be unable to convince you, but my reactions to pretty much anything is extremely unresponsive, expected and distanced. And maybe that’s just the way I am.
 
|
for some reason i really wanna say "annnnnngst". But i think that your view is rather common today. While i cant quite find words for the sentiment you express, it seems to me that you seem to think your lack of caring is a new viewpoint. People with no care for human life, or with a large belief in human ingenuity, have been frequent throughout history (and the concept is explored in my favorite series, "The Sword of Truth" by Terry Goodkind, i cant recommend it enough) I believe your point is, as you said earlier, that you have dehumanized the population of the planet. The immensely powerful social force that an apocalyptic scenario, such as pandemic flu etc, would represent would have exactly the opposite effect you believe. People do not often act with the cohesion or adaptability you proscribe to them, and it is often quite the opposite. If anything this is demonstrated by our constant warfare throughout the centuries. Perhaps if you had a more realistic view of how societies act on an emotional basis (and realise that those vast populations are NOT things you see on T.V.) you would feel a bit more for how many people would be effected. Also, while i think the programs you mentioned are disgusting and rather exploitative, maybe as a whole they say better things about the future of humanity than your beliefs do.
|
i think the point of helping other countries is more about trying to stop people from suffering...yea, its very unlikely that equal opportunity for everyone will ever be real, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to stop the suffering of others...i think its a lot better then just saying "screw them...no hope"
|
tl:dr
fuk the end... the end could go *** my b***
|
Hopefully op will respond to this so we can discuss his point. If you're going to post something this "deep", you'd better be willing to back it up.
|
The world is fine the way it is, "QQ MORE SENTINAL"
you sound just like a noob that got raped by my m4D sk!llz
but yeah you do have a point
|
i think the main problem with what most of what u mentioned is that we loss sight of the value of the human beings and put it on material things. but all these things are dead without people. a gun cant kill a person only a person with a gun willing to take a life... we have lost sight of our humanity and have become something else. we have become a consumer which inevitably and ironically we will end up cosuming ourselves. we eat unhealthy and then are put on pills to treat symptons and we work most of our day that we are not living but being maintain by a broken system. till we recognize the importance of human life and what its about and cosuming something fulfilling we will continue on our destructive path..
|
|
|
Hmm, kinda a messed up post.
Hopefully op will respond to this so we can discuss his point. If you're going to post something this "deep", you'd better be willing to back it up.
One of my detested progressions in medicine is the classification of human pathologies. These developments are simply definitions of human traits that people have long dealt with. A prime example is attention deficit disorder. Doctors diagnose a child with ADD and then give them drugs to modify their behaviour. Parents make excuses for raising stupid unruly children by classifying their behaviour as a treatable disease. Classrooms are pressured to divert resources from healthy, obedient children to focus attention on kids who can’t sit still. In a more classic era of pediatric medicine, attention deficit disorder is what people would call a disruptive, trouble-prone child in need of discipline.
As I agree with the fact that giving children drugs for ADD is most likely not what they need, and it is a bad "band-aid" for a serious problem- leaving them "by the road side" is not a solution either. Also to assume that the are stupid is insanely ignorant, there are many people who have ADD, or exhibit mild "symptoms" and they are at the same intellectual level as anyone else. I agree that modified forms of education need to be created.
This is a common problem among “civilized” societies today, in trying to assert an equal opportunity for all. This may be a commendable vision in a perfect world, but resources are limited in the societies we live in. Take for example the initiative to raise money for charities that give aid to poor African countries. Why do we even bother? Activists make posters and videos about the plight of poor malnourished African children. They like to complain that developed countries are uncaring and are blind to the hardships of these people. The suffering of these people is undeniable. But the approach to take to address this issue may deserve rethinking.
My friend and I were talking the other day about how money is wasted in the way that all these orginizations are set up. Most of the money is lost in the bureaucratic tendencies of organizations (the money that UNICEF sucks up in the organization it self is ridiculous), rendering a lot of the aid useless. I'm sure there are better approaches to how aid is distributed, but the complecations of such are deeper than I would care to imagine. I don't think that it is their goal to make us seem uncaring and uncompasionate, but to allow us to see into what other areas of the world are like- stirring a response. On another note, it is improper to present a question without providing any answer to it.
Everyone is quick to point out the flaws in an authoritarian structure: that power corrupts the ruler. But is it really that difficult to consider there may be one person in the innumerable sea of candidates that is capable of competently, insightfully provide fair ruling in a given community? That such a person holds such strong moral integrity to be able to resist the temptations of corruption?
You would be ballsy indeed to claim that flawed authoritarian rulers were flawed from power, and didn't have a character flaw before rising to power. In my opinion it isn't that the ruler himself is to blame, the true flaw is in the system itself, and the fact that it doesn't invite input from other facets. The only person that will never, no matter the moral fiber, be able to account for every facet of the said country. They will not truly be in touch with the wants and needs of the people. Yes, it does have possibility to be very efficient, as it only needs to go through the authorization of a single person; as opposed to a larger body.
The last two paragraphs make me sad. I really hope you don't get any pleasure from other people dieing, as that would be rather odd. I am at a loss as how to respond to the last two paragraphs, the loss of... everything that would result from some sort of "super virus" is unfathomable. And somehow I doubt that you would enjoy a world without the conveniences of modern society- as "closet emo-age" would probably not be available in such a world. To finish it off, yes I'm pretty sure you haven't seen enough to fully grasp the situation. Play more starcraft to get your mind off of it 
@ghermination- The Sword of Truth is good, but The Wheel of Time is better
|
You make really good points, I would also like to point out that Religion also slows down the whole peace process thing.
|
On May 09 2009 13:32 BalliSLife wrote:
You make really good points, I would also like to point out that Religion also slows down the whole peace process thing.
In which way? It would be nice if you gave some points to back up your statement. It is only the extremist parts of religious sects that advocate violence. I know many religious people, and a lot of them are more "pro peace" (you didn't really define what aspects of "peace" you were referring too) than most people.
|
I really don't wanna turn this into a religion flame war but i don't have much of a choice now that you called me out so i'll keep it short. What i mean by slowing the whole peace process is imagine societies without religion, think of how much we can accomplish if everyone is able to live with one another without having to blow up each other or worry about an ancient book or whatever to show them how to be a good moral person, because as far as im concerned you don't need a book to tell you it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal, and wrong to commit adultery etc etc. I know that most religious people are caring people, why wouldn't they? they fear god and that is why they do good deeds so that they will receive rewards in heaven, obviously this may not be the only reason and some people are just naturally good and caring people which is great and really everyone else should be also, but it's not always like that, i know this because i was a Christian myself. What religion is doing is slowing everything down of my vision of a perfect world where each society somehow bonded together and work together to make a world a better place through technological advances.
|
Things I've learned in life:
People will always complain. Always. Bill Gates is complaining right now about how the personal dry cleaner fucked up his $100000 suit. Thus, no matter what government, no matter how perfect we can envision our utopia, I don't think we can get rid of our bitching and moaning and thus, this idealized society can never happen.
Also, Nothing really matters. Who cares about you? A few loved ones, possibly some of your countless acquaintances, but mostly just yourself. It's ok, it's a fact of life: we're selfish. Does it matter, is there meaning to life? My answer is 'who cares!' Just enjoy your life. Don't need meaning to have fun.
I also think we're probably going to get owned sometime in the near future. I also don't care. But I just think to myself "ok, so what? It doesn't mean I can't enjoy a good dinner every now and then." And I do, I have awesome meals and good times. Haha, just enjoy the ride 
|
On May 09 2009 14:17 BalliSLife wrote:
I really don't wanna turn this into a religion flame war but i don't have much of a choice now that you called me out so i'll keep it short. What i mean by slowing the whole peace process is imagine societies without religion, think of how much we can accomplish if everyone is able to live with one another without having to blow up each other or worry about an ancient book or whatever to show them how to be a good moral person, because as far as im concerned you don't need a book to tell you it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to steal etc. I know that most religious people are caring people, why wouldn't they? they fear god and that is why they do good deeds so that they will receive rewards in heaven, obviously this may not be the only reason and some people are just naturally good and caring people and really everyone else should be also, but it's not always like that, i know this because i was a Christian myself. What religion is doing is slowing everything down of my vision of a perfect world where each society somehow bonded together and work together to make a world a better place through technological advances.
Ok, I too don't want to start a religious flame war. I will make the point that I don't think most religious people do good deeds to gain favor with a God.
I also think we're probably going to get owned sometime in the near future. I also don't care. But I just think to myself "ok, so what? It doesn't mean I can't enjoy a good dinner every now and then." And I do, I have awesome meals and good times. Haha, just enjoy the ride
lol ya
|
|
|
On May 09 2009 14:38 Terranesque wrote:
Not deep.
Crazy contribution to the thread
5/5 will read again
|
|
|
Everyone is quick to point out the flaws in an authoritarian structure: that power corrupts the ruler. But is it really that difficult to consider there may be one person in the innumerable sea of candidates that is capable of competently, insightfully provide fair ruling in a given community? That such a person holds such strong moral integrity to be able to resist the temptations of corruption?
Yes, this is extremely hard to consider. Giving a person a place of power and telling them not to abuse it the slightest would be like giving a 14-17 year old 1 million dollars and telling them not to spend a penny of it for the rest of their life.
|
If you cut out some unnecessary words and changed some words so they actually conveyed your point then this post would be a lot easier to read.
I don't think you've experienced enough to really mean what you're saying in your post, but at least you're thinking about it in some depth.
|
I don't quite know what to respond to this. You seem to be intentionally perpetuating a detached, analytical attitude that, to me, indicates that your connection to people is both quite selective and closed. It's good to be assertive about who you respect and don't, about which opinions you hold and reject, but I feel you might just be going a little overboard, being excessively rigid in those choices.
Adapting to new experiences and people who you're not initially comfortable with - people who don't necessarily share your opinions on various broad issues like the ones you're discussing - is full of growth and forces you to be modest about your confidence in those opinions you hold (which is a good thing, I think, since the issues you discuss are so very complex that you shouldn't think you have found a sure assessment, just think about how many different takes well-educated and experienced people have on these far-reaching topics).
IMO the feelings of detachment you describe are very common in modern societies, especially the alienating cities and suburbs we live in. The challenge is to stay connected to the world around you rather than sit back and see it all from a distance, because that distorts it quite a bit even though it's hard to believe that if you're in such a position. It's not easy and I think most of us struggle with this to some extent. Western society is so full of lonely people who don't REALLY connect with anyone around them, and I think we can learn a lot from looking at some third-world countries like Senegal. A friend of mine went there recently and was amazed and refreshed by how closely-knit people were. It takes great social adaptiveness - which gives great perspective - to live in such a society.
I would advocate some softness to you. Being rigid in those types of opinions will make your life more narrow and restricted than necessary and that will choke your life-energy.
On the other hand, congrats for thinking about these things and tackling these difficult questions. You're showing some depth that is quite commendable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
