Thread: So many bad news

I hate to watch news now. Just so many annoying crimes, all kind of crimes aroung the world. I don't want to say this is a new civilization, but I have to say that once people get used to be selfish and no concern of others, the end will come. Being annoying isn't cool.

yeah, and the news does most of that for entertainment and ratings..it's lame.

That's a chicken vs. egg situation. What was first: People's infatuation with violence, fear and celebrities, or the media's concentration on such "news"? It's a two-way interaction.

I understand that most televisions have a switch which disconnects the device from the electric circuits necessary to provide operational power.

Moreover I understand that you can trade a tv set for a certain monetary value to be negotiated between the owner of the TV set and the aspirant owner. This may result in a migration of the TV set into a different environment unaccessible to the original owner diminishing the negative feelings associated with operating the switch, discussed in the previous post, to the position that allows images and sounds to flow from it.

I also understand that most habitats do not come with a tv set and need to be equipped with one due to action. May I suggest inaction.

Unfortunately more and more public habitats are being equipped with large tv sets that seem to be stuck in operating mode. We can only wish this is a temporary phase in human culture.

my TV has a mouse and a keyboard attached to it !

I think people perceive bad news as a meaning to keep in touch with the reality.
Tv stations know that and they sell it.

I think people perceive bad news as a meaning to keep in touch with the reality.

That sounds too much like a conscious decision. I think people are merely following a very primal instinct here. I see it every other day on the road: When there is an accident, people driving by on both sides of the road just have to step on the break and stare at the scene to see if they can catch a glimpse of the tragedy. They do so even when the road has been completely cleared, and often even on the opposite side of the freeway. It's kind of like dumb sheep blankly staring at the left-overs of a wolf's kill. It could be that someone else's tragedy makes people feel better about themselves. It's disgustingly primitive, and the traffic jams it causes are annoying. Too bad there is no button in my car to turn that behavior off in other people...

Auto races are no fun unless some of the cars crack up.

People need to be curious to keep informed of the hazards out there. We learn to protect ourselves from reading about every crime.

And yes, the overwhelming number and seriousness of them does alarm us and make it all the more important to know what is going on to better protect yourself.

But the chicken and the egg concept was raised. There is a cause and effect process involved in social evolution. When societies gradually divide, they gradually breakdown because the individual, from one generation to the next, feels less allegence to it. He should! He is evolved to live in small hunting-gathering groups and feels lost in huge societies unless he is bound into them by a strong, common system of belief---not one that has been collapsing into zillions of religious sects and even into secular cults like the extreme animal rights "Causes" as well as those of femanine rights, gay rights, nudism, vegetarianism, libertarianism, etc. No wonder there is such a universal feeling of being a adrift, depression, rootlessness, stress and hostility.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

He is evolved to live in small hunting-gathering groups and feels lost in huge societies unless he is bound into them by a strong, common system of belief---not one that has been collapsing into zillions of religious sects and even into secular cults like the extreme animal rights "Causes" as well as those of femanine rights, gay rights, nudism, vegetarianism, libertarianism, etc.

Humans have evolved beyond small hunter-gathering groups. There may have been good reasons for hunter-gatherers to stay in small groups (mobility), but they stayed small most of all because their life-style simply couldn't support high population densities. We all know that agriculture solved that problem and boosted a first cultural revolution, making societies bigger and more complex (displacing those hunter-gatherers along the way). "Complex" is the keyword, as there has never been any large uniform society with zero diversity. In fact, contrary to the view you seem to support (it's not quite clear from your contradicting statement), it is that diversity that keeps large societies alive culturally and economically. In your mind you can artificially divide members of your society into the interest groups you mentioned, but that really doesn't reflect reality, and doesn't do anyone justice. The fabric of society is much more complex than that, with each individual being member of any number of the little boxes you'd like to draw around them. These groups overlap and coexist in the same society. Societies are not kept together by everyone sharing the same common belief, but by contributing to a diverse economy and culture. Every depressed separatist who "feels lost" in his society contributes to and benefits from it not just by paying taxes, but by any transaction within that society as simple as the purchase of food in a supermarket. That some people feel uncomfortable unless surrounded by clones of themselves is rather a matter of personal insecurity and narrow-mindedness than a problem of society.

My point is, diversity is the very basis (and not a "break down") of large societies. Au contraire, the demise that uniformity brings is exemplified in the fate of hunter-gatherer societies.

Originally Posted by M

Societies are not kept together by everyone sharing the same common belief, but by contributing to a diverse economy and culture. ...

My point is, diversity is the very basis (and not a "break down") of large societies.

I often hear this about diversity but where is the evidence? Obviously you need people capable of doing different jobs, but that doesn't have anything to do with different cultures, religious beliefs, ethnicities and so on. In the multicultural society you think is ideal, all the different groups would at least would need to share a value of tolerance, wouldn't they?

The US used to be called a "melting pot" i.e., a country where different nationalities gave up some of there culture and became Americans. We at least shared the values embodied in the Constitution. I think that was better than the multicultural mess we seem to be headed for.

Obviously you need people capable of doing different jobs

Exactly what I have in mind as the most fundamental level of diversity. We can at least agree that this is an absolute 'must' for any modern society. It's so obvious I didn't think I'd need to reflect on it. This is, however, just a very basic level. From this sort of basic professional diversity stems a whole system of cultural diversity that does not need to have anything to do with multinational influences (although it does in reality). Simply think of different attitudes and life-styles of various professional groups, like artists, scientists, police officers,... and so on. Again, these are by no means uniform and exclusive categories. They overlap and include their own diversity. This is diversity, maybe on a basic level, but already pretty complex.

the different groups would at least would need to share a value of tolerance

I wish they did. De facto, for the society to be stable, the majority needs to be constructive (not destructive) members. For example, they need to adhere to the law. This may or may not include tolerance.

The US used to be called a "melting pot".

Yes, I remember this term from history class. It's a misnomer. One of the things that distinguishes the American society from, say, the North Korean society is that people in the US are not forced to loose their cultural identity when it is not aligned with the mainstream. They need to follow the law, but the law (based on the Constitution) leaves room for cultural diversity. Well, I know this is an idealized view and there are plenty examples to contradict that wishful thinking, but I think in comparison to North Korea, the US society is looking pretty good so far.

Let's not forget, that the promise of such tolerance of diversity is the reason why a lot of people chose this new country over the old and opressive Europe from the 16th century on (whatever happened since then?? almost looks like the table has turned.).

We at least shared the values embodied in the Constitution.

Most of them still do, apart from the administration, maybe.

I think that was better than the multicultural mess we seem to be headed for.

That xenophobic paranoia has been present at all times in some part of the population, yet, the perceived American Armageddon, brought on by foreigners, has never really appeared and I don't see it coming any time soon. History tells us that America (even before the invasion, but mostly after) has always been culturally and racially diverse. Sure enough, it used to be more dominated by an oppressive white anglo-saxon majority, but the fact that that changed (relatively recently) is not a bad thing in my mind. America certainly looks a lot better today than only 40-50 years ago, when people just started to understand and accept the meaning of the Constitution and its consequences. There are still a lot of things about this society worth improving, but the famous "good old times" is a romantic and ill-advised image of a reality that never existed.

[quote="M
Humans have evolved beyond small hunter-gathering groups. .[/quote]

We have not evolved at all in the almost 200,000 years we have existed as humans. Our brain is a tiny bit smaller than at the beginning and we have a few minor phisiological differences, but we are instinctive and in all important ways the same. We have not "evolved" beyond hunting gathering groups. We adjust to larger groups by acquing language and using it to develop and adopt religions that made it possible for us to live together in such large goups in some sort of harmony.

Perhaps you have a better reason or function for religion and can better explain why we have always had them>

To dwell on groups within groups is an obsession with the insignificant. We need to see the forest instead of just looking at trees. In the modern world, we have a Christian society, a Muslim one, a Hindu one and an East Asian Marxist one. The only reason they are not at each other's throats is that all if tgem share a common Secular Humanist ideology. Just leave it to a president like George Bush to turn us back to the "clash of civilizations."

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Originally Posted by charles brough

Originally Posted by "M

Humans have evolved beyond small hunter-gathering groups. .

We have not evolved at all in the almost 200,000 years we have existed as humans.

This is simply wrong. I'll cite the evolution of l;actose tolerance in adults as a single example.
What is likely true is that our social instincts have barely changed. We survive in large societies by pretending the other people do not exist, or are not real people. Hence we ignore the other commuters on the train and often ignore the victim of the mugging or the rape. They aren't members of our tribe.

This is simply wrong. I'll cite the evolution of l;actose tolerance in adults as a single example.
What is likely true is that our social instincts have barely changed. We survive in large societies by pretending the other people do not exist, or are not real people. Hence we ignore the other commuters on the train and often ignore the victim of the mugging or the rape. They aren't members of our tribe.

I believe I already stated earlier here that our braincase is smaller and there are some metabolitic changes. This is in the news in the last weeks. My point is that trivial little changes like that in certain populations (and not in others) does not explain history or how we have come to populate the globe and built up such an advanced cultural heritage.

It is true that we sort of shut down in crowds and elevators. There are many other tricks that help us deal with the problem, but the reason it is such a problem is that our whole belief systems are different; we all have different directions we thing society should go and have little to agree on as to how to achieve these different goals. In the past, religions served that social evolutionary function because they were new and worked. Now they are old and divide us.