Do you think that because someone says they like something at a point in time, it is good to encourage what they like? — schopenhauer1

Provided that "what they like" is a good thing and provided that it can be encouraged or "given", I'd weigh in more heavily on 'yes' than 'no'. But not everything that is wanted can be given. Athletic prowess at the olympian level might be wanted but it can't be "given". Then too, good things that are wanted and can be given have limits. Beer is a good thing and I might want more, but since I am already drunk, the right answer is "time for you to go home".

Should this child's desire to read books be encouraged? Absolutely, provided that she isn't reading books about how to poison people.

For example, addicts of narcotics or opioids. They want drugs. Does that mean that it is right to just give them drugs because they want it? This is a different question than if it should be allowed as a law, just as an individual to another individual. — schopenhauer1

Are narcotics (like coca and opium) good things? They are, but only in the right context of limited use. Chewing coca leaves is one thing -- snorting purified cocaine is altogether different. Morphine and its derivatives are good for relieving pain in the short run, but not good over the long run. Using opioids for pleasure is, like snorting cocaine, altogether different.

Properly purified cocaine and heroin, in appropriate doses, is not inherently harmful. The same goes for numerous other drugs--benzodiazepines, barbiturates, antidepressants, stimulants, etc. Addiction and/or dependence is the problem. "Want" changes to "need", and the need is intense, and that is not a good thing.

Many people can use narcotics occasionally without adverse consequences--with emphasis on 'occasional'. Regular use leads to addiction.

The State and Business have been joined at the hip for a long time. I'm not sure they can be prized apart. They have been defining the terms of life for at least several hundred years.

The Church / Religion is in a long-term power decline, but it is nowhere near to irrelevance.

On a bad day I loathe all three.

Get rid of mosquitoes and other creatures also disappear, like humming birds — frank

Very interesting -- that humming birds eat a lot of mosquitos. News to me.

Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

"Most people would want this" might be appropriate guidance in the absence of knowledge about what the (actual) individual would want. We don't always know what the actual person wants. Does the unconscious cancer patient want to forego treatment? We don't know. "Most people" want cancer treatment, at least to start with. Some, though, do want to forego any or further treatment, for some possibly valid reasons.

The alternative of "most people" is either one's self, or no one.

is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

Yes, to some extent. Particular groups (Roman Catholics) teach their ethics about abortion. Another group, secularists, teach a different ethic. The majority are in a position to gradually work their will into law and ethical teaching and practice. Capital punishment used to be far, far more common than it is now. It came under increasing condemnation over many decades, so that now a hanging is rare.

I don't see any source of ethics outside of the people, the body politic, the religious movements, etc. -- all of which involve "most people" one way or another. I presume that Hammurabi referenced what most people thought.

Where does this leave antinatalism? Our actions have a significant effect on the lives of future persons not yet born. The ethical concern about global warming is primarily about the environment that will probably exist for future persons not yet born. We ought to be concerned about the circumstances of life for both the born and unborn. We can also be ethically concerned about the ethics of bringing people into a world where the environmental conditions will be very bad.

A diminishing birth rate may represent economic barriers to supporting children adequately. It may also represent a loss of confidence in the future, such that people feel it would be unethical to bring another child into the world.

In order for one to take sufficiently complex technology as magic, one would have to believe in magic. Were you or I to find a device left behind by a visiting alien civilization, and it made things disappear when you pointed it and pushed the button, we would not think it magic. We would think it amazing, horrible, fascinating, repellant, super or dangerous or whatever--but we wouldn't think it was magic. We would ask, "How does this work?"

If we believed there were no other beings in the universe, we'd have to believe it was secret human technology which had been hidden from us.

To suppose that something was of divine origin, one would have to believe that the divine existed.

Do you believe in magic? Miracles? The divine? Aliens? Technology you don't understand?

Long ago I read an anthropologist's account of a small society that encouraged its children to be as sexual as they wished to be from an early age. While children tended to be sexual with other children who were more or less at the same stage of development, this wasn't always the case. Sometimes children and adults had sexual contact. While this wasn't punisher's, it wasn't encouraged either.

The upshot of the report was that children reached sexual maturity with a very good understanding of what to expect from sex, how to engage in good sex, and what other potential sexual partners had to offer in terms of companionship, and so forth.

Sounds like a utopia. This society was abnormal -- maybe a happy one, but very unusual in its sexual norms. Some young children manage a fair amount of sexual experimentation even in our schizoid society. It was probably easier for gay boys to do this than for heterosexual youth. It wasn't utopian, of course. If an adult caught one in the middle of this activity, it could result in a hysterical episode (on the part of the adult). I'm 75. I have no idea what children are up to these days.

I’m not sure why the age difference would matter (unless someone is underage or something) — TheHedoMinimalist

That is a critical consideration. Underaged children are vulnerable to exploitation by adults because they a) aren't strong enough to defend themselves; b) have no context to understand sex with an adult; c) are too small to physically participate in penetrative sex safely. Children have sexuality and sexual urges which are far less developed than an adult's. Plus, sexuality apart, their brains are not fully developed yet either. Those are the standard reasons why adults and children should not have sex.

Are there imaginable situations where a child and adult might have a mutually satisfactory sexual experience? Probably. This might be the case for incest, homosexuality, or unrelated heterosexual adult/child interactions. However, the likelihood that these sorts of interactions will not end well is much higher than these interactions being fondly remembered by everyone concerned.

Human beings are very likely to put their own personal and private wants and needs before anyone / everyone else's needs. That's just the way we are, UNLESS we have internalized social controls, and even then... This isn't just a problem of sexual behavior; it's a problem with a lot of our behavior, across the board. People who irrationally and resolutely refuse to be vaccinated against Covid 19 are a good example.

The difference between incest and homosexuality is this: incest usually occurs between close family members--usually between persons of opposite sex--usually involving a significant age difference. It isn't a "lifestyle"; it's a dysfunction among a small group of related persons.

Homosexuality appears to be independent of family dysfunction, and in most cases does not involve a closely related relative. There are numerous lifestyle options for a homosexual outside of the natal family, ranging from celibacy to rampant promiscuity; cross-dressing to conservative business attire; Marriage and adoption are now options. (A lot of early gay liberationists were quite glad to dispense with marriage and children The assimilationists smuggled it back in.)

Even though it seems like it sometimes, we don't live in an "Anything Goes" culture. While homosexuality may be just fine in many heterosexual circles, Man-Boy Love, and the North American Man-Boy Love Association are decidedly NOT just fine.

While a case might be made that incestuous relationships or man-boy sexual relationships are not inherently harmful, there is very strong opposition to both. My guess is that there is no natural taboo against either one, but there definitely is a cultural barrier, and it is enforced.

As billions of normal people have demonstrated, a perfectly normal heterosexual relationship between two consenting adults can be awful, never mind a sexual relationship imposed by a parent on a child, or imposed by an older male on a young male.

It's not as if a paleontologist stumbles across one fossilized bone and immediately proceeds to pontificate on what the fossil means for evolution. One bone from an animal never before seen means very little in terms of evolution. First the fossil must be put in context: where, when, how deep, the geology of the site, the age of the location, what else was found in that place, and so on. Then the animal from which the bone came has to be identified (if possible). If the fossil-animal can be identified, then there can be a comparison of similar, older and younger fossils. Never mind the difficulty of extracting the whole fossil from its substrate.

All of this is likely to take years and involve many people. A fairly large body of information has been built up which enables paleontologists to occasionally see clear evidence of evolution. Why not more evidence? only a tiny portion of fossil-bearing rock has been, or can be investigated. Most of the fossil-bearing rock are too deeply buried under over-burden.

In fact, fossils do provide evidence for evolution, but the record is by no means complete. Many steps between species are missing.

Take archaeopteryx lithographica, the earliest bird to get the worm.

A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx c, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.
It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.

So the status of this "bird" if that's what it is, is not an open and shut case yet.

I was judging him harshly? It is a good thing to have more Ideas than you know what to do with. Had his mind been a quiet shallow pool, the D of I and more would not have been written.

Jefferson was a man of many parts -- a "renaissance man" -- with 360º of interests. Nobody (save me and thee, and even thee...) can be consistently superior in all aspects.

I know nothing about American Indian languages.

varying per one source from one tribe to another more than Chinese to English. — tim wood

Side note to side note: Not surprising at all. The 13,000 years (+ or - a millennium) the aboriginal people occupied the Western Hemisphere alone, is plenty of time to develop barely related languages. Indo-European produced languages as mutually incomprehensible as Urdo and Gaelic over 5,000 to 8,000 years, and this in a smaller period of time than passed in the Western Hemisphere.

It's quite possible that the proto-indiginous people carried more than one language group to start with. Though they were native to NE Asia, they had mixed with a well-travelled central Asian people who also mixed with proto-Europeans (all this promiscuous mixing over millennia). Europeans and Indigenous Americans share a large genetic inheritance from the central Asian people. ***

*** A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe (2021) by Johannes Krause and Thomas Trappe. Krause is a scientist (archeogenetics at a Max Planck Institute), trappe is a science writer.

Thomas Jefferson is a fraught topic from any angle. Take his reputation as a splendid architect. I read a thorough history of Jefferson's work on Monticello several decades ago -- sorry, can't remember the author. One might picture Thomas the architect Jefferson carefully planning the house, executing the construction, then living in it happily ever after. Not so! The house was never done. Jefferson would periodically rip out finished parts and redo them. His family had to put up with construction for much of the time. If divorce had been easier back then, he probably would have lived by himself.

On the one hand, he fashioned a hidden door-closing device (nice feature) but installed narrow steep stairways that were not at all charming. The smallish square windows in some of the second floor bedrooms are at floor level, and while the big dome room is interesting, it probably wasn't very usable -- very narrow stairway access, extremely hot in the summer, inconvenient window height, etc. The exterior has a splendid appearance; none of the rooms inside the house were the same shape--lots of odd angles and sizes. Still, it was a pleasant place to live, one would think.

Jefferson apparently had more ideas in his head than he knew what to do with.

All history is myth, designed to reveal ideals and enforce ideology. It is a political tool. Objective history is a video tape of events, no events prioritized, no events nterpreted, and no commentary provided. We embue with new meaning when we interpret. — Hanover

Henry Ford thought that history was bunk. You are right. History is designed to convict those who did not live up to the stated ideals as directed by current ideology, Yesterday Thomas Jefferson was a national hero and all-around renaissance man; today he's a white supremacist, slaver and a rapist. He still wrote the D of I, but that's now part o the prosecution's case. Political tool, absolutely.

Frederick Wiseman has made a series of films like those you describe: His camera observes people going about their day in various institutions--mental hospital, emergency room, welfare office, high school and numerous other places. There's no narration, no comment, no interpretation provided. The films are a history, not the history.

History books are of necessity more "A HISTORY" than "THE HISTORY". One book won't reveal the past fully, so one has to compare and contrast versions. No guarantees, of course, that one will form a coherent picture of the past, or an 'approved' picture of the past.

Some years ago I asked some very bright high-school students from one of America's better high schools just a few questions about American history. According to them, the American Civil War occurred in the 1920s, "Didn't it?" — tim wood

I used to worry about otherwise advantaged students not knowing when major events happened, like the Civil War, or not knowing big events happened at all -- like the holocaust. History matters to people who study or teach history, and to a few others. I think history is important, but it obviously isn't critical knowledge in a lot of fields. How much history does a dentist or an accountant need to know?

Does know the sequences of dates make people better citizens? Maybe. It's probably more important that people understand the difference between the messy truth and the official national narrative. It isn't just the USA. Every country has a messy history overlaid by a cleaned up national narrative. The truth is exclusive neither to the chaos of history nor to the museum-grade national narrative.

1776 or 1619? Either, neither, both.

Two years later, Britain ceded India. Not a coincidence — Kenosha Kid

Bear in mind that Indians had been organizing efforts to rid themselves of the British Raj since before WWI. It was an item on their agenda about which both Moslems and Hindus agreed. At the end of WWII Britain was bankrupt; some food rationing continued for 9 years after the end of the war. They were in no position to enforce the terms of empire, especially a global empire of increasingly restive independence movements.

No doubt, though, there were people in GB who thought GB should get out of the empire business, for reasons military, economic or moral.

Empires started shedding their colonies in self-disgust. — Kenosha Kid

Self-disgust had nothing to do with it. Empires shed their empires because they could not hold on to them any longer. Then too, the natives were getting restless, never a good thing for the regime.

I am grateful that I got out of town before the wave of postmodern shit arrived.

It's been about how people should be, and how they might become that way if they aren't so already. — baker

And psychologists have certainly done a fine job on that project!

I'm not happy, not happy at all that I had to do your homework for you. — TheMadFool

Maybe an antidepressant would help?

Good point. Thanks.

If psychology (or sociology) is not a science, then what is it?

It seems to be a hybrid of formal science (such as when psychologists measure response time, learning rates, memory, etc.) and a mix of the humanities -- philosophy, history, literature, et al. It also has a practical streak: "Just what, exactly, is your problem and how can you solve it?" Some psychologists are really good at this and others are not, just like one's friends might be good problem solvers, or not.

What the hell is economics, for that matter? Economists study behavior but they seem to be no better than anybody else at predicting the next economic disaster. If you can't tell me when the next collapse is coming, what good are you? How about "political science"?

All of the behavioral sciences suffer from an inability to surreptitiously observe enough people closely enough long enough. Picky ethicists disapprove of bird-watching people, and doing rat-maze experiments on our fellow man. Put the fussy ethicists out to pasture and we might be able to get something done (90% just joking).

Some workers in the field have actually done some first rate bird-watching; thinking here of Laud Humphreys and his public toilet sex study. Great work, Tearoom Trade. Another such study was done by Prof. Jack Weatherford of Washington, D.C. adult book stores. Extra, extra, read all about it. Porn Row.

Both of these sociologists / anthropologists got up close and personal without compromising anyone's identity or safety. Others have observed gangs, punk rockers, drug users, etc. etc. It's slow, sometimes dangerous work. Most prospective PhDs (for some odd reason) don't want to hang around in gangs or mahogany paneled suites for years on end studying the local fauna.

I've been trying to decide whether I should try to make a comprehensive case for psychology as a scientific discipline. I'd considered doing that in the past but never got around to it. That would be the only potentially effective way for me to respond to your skepticism, but it will take some effort. Let me think about whether I've got the energy to do it right now. — T Clark

Brother Wood will, like as not, doubt the worth of psychology (and sociology as well, most likely) no matter how solid your defense. People who think psychology should be a hard science like physics or chemistry need their heads examined, as well as their lives.

Psychology can not be a science like chemistry because its subject matter -- the minds of human beings -- are not directly observable, and moreover consists of billions of individuals who are all capable of obfuscation, deceit, dishonesty, distrust, willful stupidity, and more (as well as brilliant understanding and very sharp perception). One can with considerable accuracy measure how fast a person can read, how much they can remember, how quickly they can learn a skill, and the like. When it comes to examining a life in all its neurotic splendor, whether it's ones own or someone else's, one enters a funhouse of uncertainty.

Despite all that, there are many (not sure its more than a billion) people who seem to be healthy, well grounded, clear headed, honest, open, and cooperative. They, of course, do not end up on the psychotherapeutic couch. Psychology would probably learn more if it spent more time analyzing all the happy people who are alike, and less on the unhappy people who are all different and totally screwed up.

You are dating yourself. Sears is as good as dead. But now we have Amazon, which has much crap for sale than Sears did. Once we had only philosophy, which philosophers will think was as solid as bed rock--just the way Sears was once the go-to retailer for most of the country, selling everything from ladies corsets to farm machinery.

Granted, psychology is not as rigorous as physics--and why would it be, considering it's subject matter, and the capacity of its subjects (you and me) to deceive themselves and others? Neurology, physiological brain science, etc. have rigor, but they don't help us know ourselves.

Did you, or are you reading Candide? If not, it's an easy read, and pretty short.

It begins with a young man, Candide, who is living a sheltered life in an Edenic paradise and being indoctrinated with Leibnizian optimism by his mentor, Professor Pangloss.[8] The work describes the abrupt cessation of this lifestyle, followed by Candide's slow and painful disillusionment as he witnesses and experiences great hardships in the world. Voltaire concludes Candide with, if not rejecting Leibnizian optimism outright, advocating a deeply practical precept, "we must cultivate our garden", in lieu of the Leibnizian mantra of Pangloss, "all is for the best" in the "best of all possible worlds". — Wikipedia

The horrors he lists, some of them absurd, all happened to characters in the story. Are you familiar with Leonard Bernstein's opera, "Candide"? It's a great show. Here's a sample... Here Pangloss (with his face disfigured from syphilis) explains why everything is for the best to Candide.

It begins with a young man, Candide, who is living a sheltered life in an Edenic paradise and being indoctrinated with Leibnizian optimism by his mentor, Professor Pangloss.[8] The work describes the abrupt cessation of this lifestyle, followed by Candide's slow and painful disillusionment as he witnesses and experiences great hardships in the world. Voltaire concludes Candide with, if not rejecting Leibnizian optimism outright, advocating a deeply practical precept, "we must cultivate our garden", in lieu of the Leibnizian mantra of Pangloss, "all is for the best" in the "best of all possible worlds".

what type of reaction do you think the police would have against a large non-mainstream protest against capital? — Maw

Are you speaking of das capital or de capitol?

Any strong, coherent, powerful protest against capital[ists] has been and will be suppressed by the state (some branch). This is not a left/right issue: Most people support capitalism (in the same way they support air or sunshine). Every now and then an effective stroke against capitalism is made, usually in the form of a labor strike. Democrat and Republican governors alike will call out the national guard to assist the capitalists (96 times out of 100, anyway).

Occupy was able to establish its camps on the doorsteps of the corporation and the government without receiving police suppression because it was (more or less) beneath the contempt of capitalists and the state. It just wasn't a threat. It was worth doing, but let's be clear -- the idealists who flocked to Occupy were not plotting revolution. They were engaging in a very pleasant Young Folks Frolic & Political Dance. They should do it more often,

But Cuba. — schopenhauer1

Yet for some reason these people are painted as radical Castro-loving communists by the right. — Mr Bee

Cuba and Castro? Up here in Canadian border state land anyway, Cuba and Castro just don't show up on the radar. Just because they've had some demonstrations doesn't make them relevant to US politics, all of a sudden. (I'm in favor of lifting the embargo on Cuba and freely trading with them.)

I don't think problem lies with Leftists per se, as some members seem to suggest (I think Leftists are far smarter today than they have in decades prior), but rather lies with the colossal structures of Capitalism, ideological bulwarks, state militarization, etc. — Maw

Absolutely.

It would be hard to over-state the intensity of efforts against labor and the left by the capitalist class (the ones who actually are succeeding at capitalism) and their government / political branches.

There are forms of Left Wing radicalism apparent in the US, but none so apparently emboldened as the Right's. — Lil

Old style Communists would probably brand the right-wing storming the US capitol building (1/6/21) as "infantile adventurism" or some such. There is no good reason for the left--even if it were a coherent militant force, which it is not--to pull a similar stunt.

Why not?

The US Government, like most large governments, is perfectly capable of defending itself and prosecuting would-be revolutionaries, right or left. True, the capitol police force was caught flat footed, but they are but a tiny branch of the forces available.

As mentioned above

The very idea of there being an uprising is skipping steps, there isn't any other option than hard work by organizers and taking over local governments and councils — Saphsin

There is virtually zero revolutionary left-wing (socialist) organizing going on in the United States. There probably is more right wing / fascist organizing going on, but we are not talking about a mass movement on the right, either. The Right wing doesn't need to get organized as long as you have people like Trump, Mcconnell, Abbott, et al around.

~ . ~

~ . ~

This is a serious issue James Riley, the younger generation is suffering and the Boomers ignore their cries of pain/calls for reform. Denying someone's identity is tantamount to genocide — K Turner

You have gotten carried away. Going off the deep end doesn't strengthen your case. Disagreeing with screwy ideas is not genocide.

One of the reasons "boomers" ignore you is that we have been around the block a few times and find many of you "gender specialists" inordinately self-involved. "Sexual identity" is a new issue for you, but is not a new issue historically. Lots of people have dealt with it more and less productively over the last century.

There is this mantra that "You can be anything you want to be." President of the United States; as rich as Bill Gates; a self-designed new gender. Dream on.

I once specializing in being a liberated homosexual, politically radical, a rebel. Fine for me, but when I ran it up the flag pole I expected everyone to salute. Guess what: Outside of a small circle of friends there were no salutes. You can be as far out as you want, but there are costs. A lot, maybe most people are going to flat out reject you. Get used to it.

From now on I want you to address me a "@#$#@!#$#". Oh, you don't know how to pronounce that? That is your problem, not mine. )(()((()((()( over there wants you to kneel when you address )(()((()((()(. You don't mind, do you?

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to a source that could help convince me that technological progress and ideas are unlimited. — Maximum7

You might as well decide for yourself, because nobody has the answer.

IMHO, there are reasons to suppose that progress will not be unlimited. In order for our progress to be unlimited, we would have to be unlimited, and we are--just my guess--probably not. As species go, our 'high achievement record' is pretty short. There have been bright flashes in the pan, but nothing resembling a constant beacon of steady progress.

Think: The industrial revolution started with steam roughly 250 years ago. After not a lot more than 1 century of full-blast industrialism, we are heading towards inadvertently heating the atmosphere to civilization-stopping temperatures.

What can possibly go wrong with everything that we can think of? Well, just about anything. We are the weak link here. We are not good at long-term thinking. It's difficult for us to plan 10 years ahead, let alone 100 or 200 years. Coherent planning and execution over long periods of time just isn't our forte. We are not good at calculating the downsides of things we want to do.

We will be doing well to exit stage left honorably and gracefully, at some point in the future, without taking everything out with us.

On the micro-level, change is a constant. The same on the macro level but might be a bit too slow to notice. People do not have an aversion to change, they have at least some aversion to adversity. A little adversity is OK. I enjoy a big thunderstorm and wind. Most people are willing to tolerate quite a lot of adversity--especially when it is other people's adversity.

As a child, ever experience the rush of opening a Christmas present? — HardWorker

No. it was always a lump of coal. Me and my siblings developed an intense, revolutionary longing for change. Sadly, we didn't get that either.

Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept? — SteveMinjares

I have found that a lot of people who believe in various crock-of-shit theories think that religion is beneath contempt, when -- unbeknownst to them -- it's all pretty much the same faith-based kind of thinking.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

Surely, only a philosopher would think that many (any?) arrived at belief in God through theoretical or logical proof.

The much more probable routes are:

1. Being taught, as a child, that God(s) exists.
2. Being persuaded by a teacher [missionary] as an adolescent or adult that God(s) exist.

The experience of being taught, persuaded, comforted [or threatened] is the critical part for most people. Some may arrive at belief through their own private efforts.

I think a non-believer, were they to move to being a believer, would likely need to have experiences. — Bylaw

Absolutely. And believers also need to have experiences to maintain belief. That is what the community of believers does -- provides validating experiences. Lukewarm believers (millions and millions) gradually drift into actual or functional disbelief by (usually self-selected) isolation from an effective community of believers (any religion). Showing up at a random congregation periodically probably won't maintain belief. It needs to be a friendly, welcoming, all-around good experience. And it should be noted that plenty of congregations -- any belief system -- manage to be fairly unpleasant, one way or another.

Good preaching / good teaching is another aspect of continued belief.

Famously (though perhaps not famous enough) the Cochrane trials only recently found most common paracetamol to be largely ineffective for the majority of people. — Isaac

Interesting result, because Tylenol/paracetamol/acetaminophen (all the same compound) are sold OTC. It seems very unlikely that people would buy it by the billions of pills IF it had no effect?

I have osteoarthritis which causes a lot of mid-level pain and limits mobility. I prefer ibuprofen (Advil in the US, Anadin®, Brufen®; Calprofen®... in the UK) to acetaminophen which seems to have more negative long-term or large-dose consequences.

Some of the drugs used to treat cancers do seem to work well, at least in the medium run. Some kinds of lymphoma, for instance, can be controlled for a few years, though in the end the cancer proves fatal. But 2 or 3 years of survival is a good result, I think. Some drugs, many of which are very expensive and/or have serious side effects, may control a cancer for only short periods of time (months), which seems like a dubious achievement.

I'm 75; I currently take 6 Rx medications for chronic conditions -- none of them new. Do they work? Yes; but not a cure. That's OK; at my age some things don't need to be cured, just tolerated.

DuPont's advertising logo used to be "Better Things for Better Living... Through Chemistry." A lot of people count on chemistry to solve their life-style generated problems caused by smoking and drinking; too many calories, not enough exercise; too much time in the sun; too much fried fish and meat cooked on open fires or charcoal (loaded with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons); too much striving after a high-consumption life style, etc. etc. etc. Never mind pollution from chemical plants producing better living through chemistry,

All good points.

Scientists in big pharma's labs are probably much more motivated by the potential for human benefit than the executives. My guess is that they are salaried and have no share in the patents.

It's now so lucrative for pharmaceutical companies to get an anti-cancer drug approved that could make a profit from absolutely any chemical at all and simply run sufficient trials for one to have a positive effect by chance alone. — Isaac

That is how a lot of early-stage drug research is done. Colonies of cancer cells are cultivated in many petri dishes, then exposed to one chemical after another to find one that is harmful to the cancer cells. Same thing with AIDS drugs back in the 1980s and 90s -- lots of lab techs in universities testing one chemical after another.

Sometimes a given chemical's effect on tissue is known, but there are so many different chemical compounds, (hundreds of thousands, at least) for which the effects on tissue are not known. That in itself is another problem, because we end up getting exposed to many of these chemicals.

Pharmaceutical companies paid for 6,550 trials out of 7,598 in 2014. — Isaac

That's a problem. Another problem is that drug trials are not what one would call 'thorough'. The real drug trial often starts after a drug is approved for use. Drug companies collect "adverse results" to see whether too many people are getting sicker. Non-drug-company-research is done (not often enough) to determine whether drugs work at all. Fairly often the result is "not that much" or "no better than existing drugs".

Millions of people take antidepressants for a long period of time. Do they work? To some extent, they may. They probably help people put up with bad situations. It would be much better if people changed their life circumstances, but that is far easier said than done.

Same year that the Cochrane report found Tamiflu had little to no benefit in preventing the flu or shortening the duration of flu symptoms, yet had a chance of life-threatening side effects, including suicide. — Isaac

Public health measures (vaccination, social distancing, masks, frequent hand washing, staying home when sick...) are effective in reducing the incidence of influenza and Covid 19 and some other diseases. We should depend on public health rather than pills to deal with viral disease.

What kind of schizophrenic CEOs do you imagine are in charge of these organisations? — Isaac

The "schizophrenia" concerns the kind of drugs that are sought in R&D laboratories and how these drugs are priced. First, the drug companies favor drugs that are taken for long periods of time over short periods of time. Bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites pose the greatest threat to human health and well-being (apart from global warming). There are no new antibiotics in the pipeline of drug development, and the existing ones are gradually losing their effectiveness. The demands of investors drive the search for the multi-billion dollar jackpot that will cost $50,000 to $100,000 a year, or cost much less but will be taken over decades.

Antibiotics are missing from the R&D program because they won't yield as much profit -- pure and simple. They are generally taken for 2 or 3 weeks, and then are no longer needed.

Pricing of drugs isn't "schizophrenic"; from their POV, it makes perfectly good sense to extract the cost of development and profit-potential as rapidly as possible. What that means is that many of the humanity-benefiting drugs will be far too expensive for most of humanity to afford.

I benefit from several old drugs that are long-term cash cows. I am grateful for their place on the pharmacy's shelves. But these old drugs I am taking are still remarkably expensive (in the US). They are priced at the highest level the market will bear because they are allowed to get away with it. In most developed countries they are not.

So I thought I would ask here and see if anyone has any thoughts on what rules or attributes you would like to see in the civilization you participate in. — RoadWarrior9

We form increasingly complex communities (eventually aggregating into "society" and then "civilization") in order to meet our basic requirements for life and to fulfill our extended wants, like a system of meaning, new stories to hear, read, or watch; more complex forms of self-expression; safety; security, enterprise (business), and so on.

There are various ways of putting together a complex civilization. Whatever works.

To start off here are a few of mine:

Freedom. Being an individualist and somewhat of a recluse this is one of my most important attributes. This can be a complicated subject to fully define as it applies to beings but the basic idea is: You can do any thing you want as long as you do not interfere with someone else's freedom.
No taxes
Free quality health care for everyone
100% employment opportunities — RoadWarrior9

What does a reclusive individualist need freedom for? You are holed up in your apartment. Freedom is more important for the socially engaged person who put's himself/herself into the daily give and take of normal life.

No taxes. Well, this goes well with being a reclusive individual. Presumably you won't ever be asking for any assistance from civilization, so civilization has no need for income to provide you with any services. How do you support yourself in your secluded room?

It was noted above, but free health care without taxation is extremely problematic. Providing health care costs money. How is the health care system supposed to pay for the services you wish to be provided for free?

100% employment opportunities? I suppose you mean that everyone can have a job of some sort, whether they like it or not. Who is going to oversee employment? No taxes means no government.

No taxes, no government, no services... Suppose your apartment building catches on fire. Are you and the other recluses living there going to put it out? Or are you going to call the fire department? No taxes, no fire department.

Suppose a local gang beats you up every time you venture outside. Who will protect you? No taxes means no police.

You might want to go for a ride in a car. No taxes means no roads.

No taxes and freedom are, basically, incompatible. This will sound very counter-intuitive to you.

DNA is a code, true enough -- vastly more complex than a batch of IF/THEN codes. DNA and brains are both extraordinarily complex. Remember, the idea of a human being like a robot is based on a diminution of the concept of "human". Robot = human is far more of a crappy metaphor than a helpful comparison.

If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots. — Kinglord1090

We are a lot different than robots. And robots, remember, are a shabby imitation of ourselves, not the other way around.

The thing about emotions is that they are not a discrete function. They are integrated deeply into our thinking processes--so integrated that without emotion we wouldn't be doing much thinking. Emotion provides the motive power behind thinking. We engage in difficult problem solving because we have desires to solve problems, and find pleasure in doing so. Then there is fear driving us forward if we face a life-threatening problem.

Emotions become a problem when they are not regulated by reason. If something happens that "makes us angry" we can either allow anger to reckless rampage, or we can channel it into a socially tolerable form.

We can do without murderous road rage--absolutely.