the desire for sex comes up; satisfying that, the desire for fine art comes up — baker

Personally, I haven't found that a desire for fine art follows sexual satisfaction. A cigarette, maybe, but please, no fine art in the bedroom.

Are you sure the insatiable-and-ever-rising-desire model is valid? Left to our own devices, I think most people would be reasonably satisfied once their broadly-defined basic needs are met. We, though, are NOT left to our own devices. For at least the last 100 years, retailers and manufacturers of all sorts have been using an array of communication methods to entice us into continually desiring more and "better".

The amount of consumption that occurred in most households began to rise sometime in the late 19th / early 20th century. Why, in 1915, was a house with 850 square feet of floor space considered adequate for 2 adults and perhaps 1 child? It was adequate because people didn't buy so much stuff! A typical man didn't own 5 suits, 20 shirts, 6 pairs of shoes, and enough underwear to change at least once a day for a couple of weeks. Same situation for women. One small closet and a small dresser could contain a couple's clothing. Books were usually borrowed from a library. A couch, a chair, and a lamp furnished a living room.

People with a great deal of money have usually accumulated a much more stuff than ordinary people -- nice, expensive stuff because it helped them maintain their status.

The argument about taxing parents vs. the rest of us is just not interesting; I don't see it as a problem.

But, the bigger problem here is that you claim that the hermit has rights but you haven't indicated how or from what source these rights came to him. You haven't claimed that rights are from God. That would be one way for him to have rights. You haven't claimed that they are from anywhere else, either. Did he just declare one day that he had rights? You or I could claim that we had rights, but how would the hermit, you, or I make it stick?

Have you heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It's a United Nations document. It grants numerous rights to everyone. But is the United Nations a sufficiently authoritative and powerful organization that it can create rights for everyone? Seems doubtful.

The Constitution of the United States enumerates the "inalienable rights" of American citizens. The authors of the Constitution thought the nation they were creating had the authority and the power to create rights. Citizens of the newly hatched country also thought that their nation had sufficient authority and power. As it turned out, the nation did not have quite enough authority and power to fully establish the rights the constitution enumerated. It's been a struggle.

The hermit has rights. It is wrong to kill him, yes? He is entitled to defend himself against your deadly attack. So he has a right to life. — Bartricks

Personally, I don't have any problem with the hermit having rights as an individual. It would be wrong to kill him. He has a right to life. So do I, so do you. THAT isn't the question. The question is where do the rights that we have come from? I think they come from a society that has enough authority and power to establish them. When states fail, the rights that they had once created begin to evaporate because the authority and power of the collective society is gone. A once orderly society becomes a chaotic and frequently fatal 'all against all'.

Once upon a time there were 10 early Homo sapiens adults kwho happened to be the only sentient species within the very large valley they found themselves in. The 10 were not related (beyond being the same species) and they had never met each other before. Each person was on his or her own, wandering about, foraging for nuts, berries, and tubers or fashioning spears and killed small game.

When one of the early people wanted to engage with someone else they used gestures and inarticulate noises, since they didn't have language yet [note, language isn't the issue here]. If one of them wanted to trade a roasted squirrel for some nice currants, the trade could be worked out.

Questions:

Did any of the 10 people have any rights? No.
Did any of the 10 people have any property? No.

Fast forward 100,000 years.

Once upon a later time, 100 people happened to live in close proximity to each other. Some of the people were children, some of the people were their parents, and some of the people were not related to anyone else. They tended some plantings of grains, but they still foraged and hunted. They could communicate with each other, so if they wanted to engage with each other, it was easy.

The place where they lived did not have a name. It wasn't organized. Shelters and piles of garbage were helter-skelter. There was no communal storage bin. Everybody kept their own little store of grain.

Questions:

Did any of the 100 people have any rights? No.
Did any of the 100 people have any property? No.
Did a government exist? No.

Fast forward 10,000 years.

Once upon a still-later time, 1,000 people lived together in a city with stone buildings. They raised grain and lentils, onions and parsley. They do not hunt or forage. A very minor potentate rules over the city and controls everything.

The very minor potentate divided up some of the land into little plots and said each person could raise whatever they wanted on the and, and they could keep it, except for 2% of the crop which the very minor potentate said belonged to him. People didn't have much in the way of material stuff, but they did have a little.

Questions:

Did any of the 1,000 people have any rights? Yes.
Where did their rights come from? From the very minor potentate's government.
Did any of the 1,000 people have any property? Yes.
Where did their property come from? From the very minor potentate's government.
Did a government exist? Yes, if you can call a very minor potentate a government, which you can.
Where did the very minor potentate get permission to rule over everybody? Executive Fiat.

The people didn't give themselves property. Until someone came along and created the idea of "property" and said, "All this is mine, and that little bit over there is yours. Keep your hands off my property or you'll be dead meat." the idea of having property couldn't exist. "Rights" to having property couldn't exist either until they were created by (in this case) the very minor potentate. "You have a right to grow whatever you want on your little plot of land. Remember to keep your hands off my property. You have no right to it whatsoever."

The government, such as it was--a tin-pot potentate--gave the people rights. Maybe he shouldn't have, but he did.

What happened to the 1,000 people living in the city run by the very minor potentate is a crude model of what would happen in the future:

a) people live together in large numbers and need a coordinator
b) the coordinator of all the activities a large number of people undertake becomes a government
c) the government, with the assent of the people, creates rights, or revokes them.

In time, people become very accustomed to the various rights they have and come to think that rights, like apples, grow on trees. They don't. They come from a collective of some sort that has the necessary power to either create or destroy rights. It might be the collective of all the king's horses and all the king's men, or it might be the self-constituted revolutionary government, the junta, or a committee democratically elected by the citizens to form a government snd define rights and responsibilities.

However it is done, rights are granted.

if they so wish, can decide to protect my rights — Bartricks

You talk of rights, but you do not explain where rights come from. Did you create your rights ex nihilo? Did you just decide you had something called rights? Why would anyone else care that you "had rights" all by yourself?

They wouldn't.

@Banno called this kind of thinking "the sovereign individual". In another discussion I called it "atomization" which you said you didn't understand.

You didn't invent the concept of rights; that was done long before you were born. Besides being born to parents who were playing an exceedingly cruel hoax on you (probably you in particular) you were born into a society of non-sovereign, non-atomized individuals which granted you rights.

It's way too late (by centuries) for you to invent your sovereign individual rights. You missed the boat -- sorry. [individual creatures, no matter what species, are always enclosed in a matrix of other individuals and other species. There are no 'sovereign individuals' anywhere!]

Look: I can understand the wish to be a sovereign individual, having the privileges of an absolute monarch. The desire is latent in our id-self per Dr. Freud. It happens to be an infantile, narcissistic desire. It is embarrassing to see an adult elevating the self-centeredness of a helpless infant to a philosophical platform.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, — I don't get it

Most people don't have to even try.

I just really have had this thought that things are screwed no matter what lie heavy on my head recently. — I don't get it

Well, look: In the BIG PICTURE, everything is screwed no matter what. In the end the sun expands and the earth ends up a cold cinder. Death is the end. Sic transit gloria mundi. We may not like it, but that, as they say, is tough.

Yeah, but my question was about how best to live one's life with the knowledge that things are bad either way. — I don't get it

"How to live one's life well" is a huge topic. Sorry, I'm not up to answering it just right now (not that I have the answer anyway). There are lots of guides that have been written over the last few thousand years. Start with the Stoics, many here would say.

First, understand that the world was not organized for our convenience or designed for our continual happiness. Accept the world as it is; that's where to start. Accept yourself the way you are, too. You can improve, but the place to start is self acceptance.

Set reasonable goals to work toward for the next few years. What's important to you? Work towards your goals. If you achieve them, great. If you don't, reconsider the value of the goals and try again, or try something else.

Do things that make you feel good (happy) and avoid optional things that makes you fl unhappy. Work is often a major pain, but that's how we get money to live. Don't look for fulfillment in a job, unless you just happen to be lucky and find a fulfilling job. Even if you do, it probably won't last (the fulfilling part).

Live frugally. Save money. The less you need to live, the less you are dependent on specific jobs. Having money in the bank will solve a lot of problems.

Do what you can to maintain a positive outlook on life. Yes, it helps.

You are running your life. You are not a robot or driven by an algorithm you have no control over. You have some choices.

that doesn't change the fact that it is a process with no end. — I don't get it

Yes, there is an end. I'm 75. I used to be very sexually active. Over the years, the urgency with which I have desired sex has gradually decreased to where it is now seldom. And even when I do desire it, it is sometimes more bother than it is worth (takes too long, doesn't feel all that great, etc.)

Frankly, if my sex drive disappeared 100%, it wouldn't be missed. That would not have been the case even 10 years ago.

Lots of things I used to enjoy are not that much fun now, I still like to ride my bike, but what was once a short ride (10 miles) is now a long ride, and I have quite a bit of pain. I don't go for long walks for the same reason. Food isn't quite as enjoyable as it used to be because the senses of taste and smell are not as sharp as they used to be.

This is the way aging works, and it's OK.

Once more: if I have an illness that can be cured, but I do not wish to take the medicine that will cure me, am I entitled not to take it? Would you be doing me wrong if you ignored my wishes and forced me to take it? — Bartricks

The wish to die from the course of a disease can be addressed in an advanced directive. In the directive you inform your doctors of the point at which you wish treatment to cease (especially if you are unable to speak for yourself). If you are awake and apparently mentally competent you can refuse further treatment live and in person. So, yes, you can refuse care, and it makes sense to do so IF and WHEN you have determined that life will not be meaningful to you even if you survive.

I have been present with friends who refused further care, and they went home to die (not very quickly, in one case).

Well, by the same token, if I know that by visiting Jane I will die, but I wish to visit her anyway, then you're not entitled to stop me. — Bartricks

So yes: You, individually, are free to visit Jane, even though you know you will contract her disease and will then die. Jack is free to visit Jane and Harry, even though he knows he will contract their disease and die. Jane and Harry are free to invite Jack to attend their party, as long as they have informed Jack of the risks.

There is a shift there from you knowingly taking risk upon yourself with Jane. Jack is similarly free to knowingly assume risks. Jane and Harry would be acting in very bad faith IF they invited Jack to a party (or a game of croquet) WITHOUT informing Jack of the risk.

Are 100 people free to hold a really big, wild sex orgy where several diseases will be contracted by many people?

There is another shift: large numbers of people accepting an ambiguous risk.

I would say that the public's stake in individual behavior increases as the number of people involved increases. You deciding to die from your illness is tolerable from the public's point of view. You are competent to discharge your life in that manner,

The further we get from one person deciding how to dispose of their own life, the more freighted the matter becomes. The 100-person orgy will eventually affect many more than 100 people who did not consent to the consequences.

These are not hypotheticals. People do, actually, organize sex parties where many people will engage in risky behavior. People serve alcohol to people who will leave the place very drunk,People hold weddings in indoor spaces where everyone will be at some risk from Covid-19. Bar owners open up and maybe 200-300 people show up at an indoor space where Covid-19 can be transmitted.

Your individual situation doesn't map to large social gatherings.

So, put down your big book of laws, and engage your reason. Am I entitled - morally entitled - to turn down life saving treatment? — Bartricks

If it is reason you want, then our response is obvious:

Not only do we think you are entitled to turn down life saving treatment, we INSIST you turn it down. In fact, you should avoid coming anywhere close to a health care facility -- even veterinarian. Who knows? You might have kennel cough. Best start digging a hole and then get into it.

The problem I have with this natural tendency, is that it appears to be totally insatiable. — I don't get it

Of course, and obviously: our needs and wants are satiable, and are regularly satiated. There are outliers whose only response to desire is MORE. They are both outliers and abnormal. Most of the men I have known like sex and pursue it enthusiastically. What they do not do is spend more and more time obtaining more and more sex. The amount of sex they want (and get) tends to reach a plateau and stay there. Why? Because enough is enough--literally.

Most people desire more money, but not an ever-enlarging absurdly huge pile -- with the exception of the most wealthy people who appear to have no limit to their pursuit of money. (Remember: the love of money is the root of all evil!)

One might love learning, and spend a lifetime learning more and more (quite possibly about less and less). I have engaged in life-long learning, but like sex, like fine oysters, like perfect pears and the best cheese--we reach a plateau of accomplishment. We reach a point where we say, "I now know as much as I desire to know about the Romanov dynasty and it's rule over all Russia from 1613-1917." Or "I have learned as much as I want about the Chicago Public Housing Authority. I could learn more, but... No."

Moderation is actually necessary to maintain pleasure. If one drank only the finest and rarest of whisky in quantity (as much as one could drink) it would no longer be a pleasure. One would be too drunk to care what one was drinking, and one's taste would become jaded.

am I now entitled to regulate your behaviour? Am I now entitled to insist you stay indoors if a virus is on the loose? — Bartricks

Public Health officials have the authority (and power) required to regulate behavior and impose quarantines or vaccination requirements, if the threat is dire and high enough. For the common cold, no. For ebola, yes. For Covid 19, yes. For polio, yes. For mumps, measles, and chickenpox, yes.

Of course you know what an atomized society is -- all individuals without social obligations -- Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as 'society'" ideal. Don't be obtuse.

The point is, since you need reading assistance, we do live in a society with obligations, Maggie T. not withstanding, and what we do individually affects other people.

Obtuse abject obliviousness would 'work' for you IF you lived in an atomized society (like the isolation wing of a prison) but you don't--as far as I can tell, but appearances can be misleading.

It's about one's right to take risks with one's own life if one wants. Imagine everyone apart from you gets an illness that can easily be cured, but no one wants to take the cure and would rather die. Well, that's everyone's right, yes? — Bartricks

In an atomized population your argument works. In a society where individual behavior makes a difference to other people, whether intended or not, your argument doesn't work, because:

individual risk taking has social costs -- HIV is a very good example, and so is covid-19. Caring for sick people requires an allocation of resources which can be exhausted by excessive disease. The set of covid-19 control measures was designed to prevent scarce resources--icu departments in particular, and hospitals in general, from being overwhelmed.

"Individuals can do whatever they want to do as long as it affects only them" does apply in many situations, but public health costs isn't one of them.

The fentanyl deaths even right here in my little town? — fishfry

But fentanyl, oxycodone, heroine, meth, other drugs, and alcohol have been a leading cause of death in the affected demographic for 2 or 3 years, at least -- haven't they?

I would not want to minimize the consequences of the lockdown. While I am an old guy and don't get around much any more (every day is a sort of lockdown), that's not true of younger people. Some people think the shutdown in Minnesota contributed to the ferocity of the riots last may that did so much damage, and the crime wave that has followed. I'm not sure about that, but it seems plausible. I'm sure the lockdown has been quite emotionally distressing to children and youth.

The lockdown was an economic disaster for service workers in closed businesses -- absolutely no doubt about that. Use of food shelves has been very high. Homelessness has increased too.

Still, 530,000 dead from Covid-19 in the US is unlikely to be matched by deaths from domestic turmoil caused by the lockdown. 2.6 million Covid deaths world-wide is more than a blip on the radar, but it's a fraction of world deaths from all causes. By contrast, in the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, about 1/3 of the world's population became infected with influenza and around 50 million died -- that at a time when world population was significantly smaller than now -- below 2B. 50 million dead from influenza was close to a doubling of total deaths world wide.

I didn't look at your list of links -- too late just now to do that, bed time coming up. But I still think the strategic business closures, social distancing, mask wearing, and avoidance of group gatherings helped.

One reason for thinking that it helped, is that there are many reports of reduced colds, flu, and such.

I binge watched the Netflix ROYALS, so I guess you are right.

Fishfry is a nice guy, but the quoted statement is BS.

HIV & AIDS presented a similar problem for gay men from roughly June of 1981 going forward. (June 1, '81 is when the first cases were described.). As the disease became more familiar, we had to decide what it was worth to us to have frequent sex with many different partners. Many of us decided it was worth enough to continue, even if with more caution. Condoms (not masks) were very strongly recommended. Civil authorities eventually intruded into the gay male environment by closing down many of the venues which facilitated easy sex. Lots of education was conducted, deliberately and accidentally (in the press). (Grindr hand't appeared yet.).

It took maybe a decade for a solid consensus to form about safe sex, condoms, HIV testing, and so on.

In contrast to the 40 years of HIV (which has not disappeared) the process of consensus guided behavior for Covid-19 developed far quicker--about 12 months. It developed rapidly because, unlike AIDS, anybody and everybody could catch Covid-19 unless they were scrupulously careful about exposure.

Communicable diseases, whether they spread through the air or through precious bodily fluids, are always a community affair. So yes, people should avoid exposing themselves and others to Covid-19. And yes, the dive bar you were going to go to on your suicide errand should be closed for the duration.

Had public health measures been taken to suppress HIV that were as vigorous as Covid 19, many of the 700,000 Americans who died of AIDS in the last 40 years would have lived. 18,000 Americans still die of AIDS every year, even though we can now prevent most of those deaths.

The deaths of at least 530,000 people from Covid 19 in one year is enough to lower the average life span of Americans.s

Just put your fucking mask on and stay the hell away from everybody else -- 6 feet. And wash your hands, too. Get the vaccine, too, or else. Can you manage all that?

Marries into the Royal family then says, "It's not working for me." — fishfry

I have tried really really hard to find an ounce of sympathy in my heart for poor Megan, and you know what? There just isn't any. When it comes to Megan Markle, I have a heart of stone, No empathy either.

I do have sympathy for people who are born into the royal family of GB without granting permission first (See Schopenhauer1's antenatal fixation). They didn't ask to be born as relatives of QEII. But Markle? She went way out of her way to get there. Poor little disappointed rich girl.

A plague on both their houses -- Buckingham Palace and the California shelter for still-over-privileged couples.

That was a nice read--detailing how the Mother Country has fallen! What I felt was less schadenfreude and more relief at getting a cohesive explanation for the national act of shooting its collective self in both feet.

But I am not convinced that GB has stolen the crown from us in the Stupidity Bowl game. Stay tuned.

It can also be seen as a code of conduct that is largely shared by a community or culture — Tom Storm

Yes. Morality is individually applied but reflects the morality of the community. Sometimes individuals develop deviations from the standard morality, such as radical pacifism--rejection of all war, including just war. We may be able to do that when we bear the cost of the deviation. The pacifist pays the price. The community will reject moral deviations that impose costs on the society--fraud, arson, rape, bloody murder, riot, and so on.

Gay men once violated the standard Euro-American morality by engaging in deviant sexual behavior. Gay sex was not tolerated, even though homosexuality imposed no cost on society, except that it offended society, and by persistently violating morality homosexuals undermined the authority of social enforcers.

Sometimes the morality of communities imposes costs on individuals -- think of all the costs imposed by racial discrimination--costs for which society has generally had little interest in compensating. Blacks and other minorities have had to work very hard over long periods of time to change the operation of community morality (and have not been successful in many cases).

One problem that anyone would have in considering this question is that they already have a religion-based system of morality which is religiously based. I may be an atheist now, but I was taught Christian morality as a child. It is as difficult to lose that religiously-based morality as it is to lose my native language. Short of a bullet to the head, both are permanent. That said, people can and may alter their religiously based morality.

My understanding of morality is that it is intended to reduce the friction and conflict among people who are consistently fractious. Secular morality can ignore the god-man relationship which religious morality attends to.

Minimizing conflict among people is an objective advantage. An orderly society allows individuals to conduct their lives as they see fit (up to the point of interfering with other people's lives). Subjectively, individuals prefer to go about their lives without excessive disruption. We do not flourish when we are constantly disrupted (like, if you keep running over the tomato plants, you will get zero tomatoes).

not many 3 year-olds there.
— Tom Storm

Yes, there are. They just have older bodies. — Banno

This raises another point about morality: Three-year olds learn to obey their parents because they fear that their parents will punish them. Sounds crude, but it works because the brain is so structured that fear (limbic system) and proper behavior (frontal cortex) are linked. When that link fails to form, the result is sociopathy or psychopathy.

The 3 year old's fear turns into the adult conscience. Conscience isn't 100% reliable, but it is reliable enough to result in most people (75%? 80%? 90%? ...) conducting their lives "morally".

Morals, of course, can backfire when humans start killing each other to enforce their morality.

Mother always warned us to not discuss politics or religion at the table when we had company. Not talk about politics or religion--what else is there?

Theism per se isn't the problem--it's the people who believe in it. Same goes for politics, literature, art, science, technology, etc. It's all possibly splendid at one end of the continuum, a shit hole at the other end. Religious experience can be sublime or supremely tedious--it all depends on who.

No matter how you slice it, we primates are the problem. Had we stayed in the trees, a great deal of trouble could have been avoided.

Abolish theism if you want -- our clever sapient selves will cook up a replacement.

The truth, allegedly, is emptiness. — praxis

Archeologists say "the truth is in the garbage." They are not being cynical. People's garbage testifies to their real activities, contrary to what they say on surveys. This would be true for Hindus and Buddhists too. As for emptiness in garbage cans, we suspect they are using the neighbor's.

I was going to volunteer as a gorilla in case that kind of warfare was needed. — frank

Good of you to volunteer in place of a gorilla, they being a peaceable and endangered species.

On the other hand, you might want to volunteer as a guerilla. Perhaps there will be a battalion of gorilla costumed guerillas.

Whether cross-racial attraction is racist or not depends on how it is done. A black guy and a white guy hit it off in the bar, go home together, and have a great time. Not racist.

A white guy exclusively prefers black men. Racist? Possibly. A black guy exclusively prefers white men. Racist? Possibly. What would make these relationships racially suspect would be the motivation. If economic power or economic opportunity plays a significant role in one's preference, classism coupled with racism is more likely. I don't think it is racist to find a handsome black guy as attractive as a handsome white guy. Where it gets dicier is when blackness (or oppositely, whiteness) is a requirement for someone to find interest in a prospective partner.

There used to be a gay group, BWMT, Black and White Men Together. They held social events, and all of the white guys had black partners (more or less exclusively). There was almost always a significant wealth and class difference--the whites being more better-off middle class, the blacks being poorer working class. Were the white guys slumming? Possibly.

It seems like the people who are "happy" and the countries that are "happy" (whatever it means for a country to be happy) would have some elements in common:

a) noticeably improving conditions (economic particularly, but also social and political aspects). Getting a good job almost always makes unemployed people much happier. Seeing that others are getting reasonably good jobs when the seek them, gives both the job seekers and observers a boost in confidence. The reverse is true; rising unemployment makes job holders less confident.

b) on-going good and stable conditions seems to make people happy. People don't usually complain that the weather every day has been just perfect -- and tediously boring. Things like a major hunk of your country deciding to secede (Catalan, perhaps?) might contribute to collective unhappiness -- just because it marks a sharp increase of instability.

c) seeing a route to a better future would tend to make people happier. Declining population (people reproducing below replacement levels) might make people unhappier. People who live in cities where there are numerous empty houses might be less happy, and so might individuals remaining in these cities.

d) squalid, impoverished, ugly environments (your basic shit hole) tend to make people less happy, individually and collectively. On the other hand, clean, prosperous, attractive environments tend to make people happier (assuming people prefer prosperity over poverty, clean over squalid, attractive over ugly).

76% of people in Britain claim to be rather happy or merely happy. If that figure is truly reflective of the UK's level of happiness, then it's probably the case that they just aren't paying attention. Have they not noticed the negative consequences of Brexit? Can a nation really be happy with a PM like Boris (or Donald)? The answer is obviously NO -- happiness under Donald Trump was a sick joke; a delusion; a scam; a filthy trick. The only thing that would be worse than Trump's presidency would be Trump's presidency again. Perish the thought!

Junk DNA might not be all that junky. But the workings of DNA are not something I know much (like, anything) about.

I take my guidance on DNA-influencing-behavior from other animals. Dogs, for instance, exhibit a lot of similar behaviors: gaze following (dogs are unique in this ability), retrieving, assistance seeking, playfulness, and so on. Dogs have been bred to herd. True, useful work-dogs have to be trained, but some behaviors are bred in the bone. You won't teach a retriever how to herd.

Children exhibit behavioral differences early on. Of course, parents also influence babies from the start, but still. Some babies seem to be more inquisitive, more reserved, or risk-taking than others. Then there are the differences among children in large families. There are major differences among children; the easiest explanation is the scrambling of genes. Fraternal twins are as unlike each other as children born years apart.

The Russians did an interesting experiment on the silver fox. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world The selectively bred animals that showed less aggressiveness toward humans. Within a surprisingly small number of years they had produced a silver fox that a) no longer had nice fox fur, b) held its tail more erectly than ordinary silver foxes, c) had less erect ears, d) were readily friendly, and e) cortisol levels had decreased significantly.

It took quite a few generations, but it revealed that there were genes controlling silver fox behavior.

There is no reason to think that Homo sapiens operate differently, when it comes to genetics. We behave the way we are bred to behave. (And that may well be a supremely depressing fact.)

It seems to me that some people get a better chance than others, because they experience more advantages physically and socially. — Jack Cummins

Quite true.

It is quite possible to think that we have an extremely large role in making ourselves who we are because our physical selves form "in the background", shaded by our very noisy foreground brains--chattering away as they do. Of course, the brain is body too, and even if it's content is open ended (whatever got stuffed into our heads by unauthorized and authorized agents) its shape is controlled by genes.

It's quite possible that many behavior traits are inherited (or at least expressed biologically): thrift vs. gambling; caution vs risk; big-picture vs detail orientation; gay vs. straight; good way finding skills vs. lost without a map; language acquisition vs. language difficulty, mathematical skill vs. innumeracy; good spatial relationships vs. none; and so on.

To some extent we are stuck with our bodies and their changing nature. ... But I do believe in a way, our bodies give us so much limitation in expressing who we are and how we would like to be perceived, sexually and artistically. — Jack Cummins

Our intellectual development is preceded by, and flows from our physical bodies and our interactions with the physical world. Our egotistical brains want to claim credit for everything, but nature made the first design decisions that determined much of who we are, who we became. Yes, of course we adapt, resist, strive, and so forth on our way to maturity, but it's quite possible that how much we adapt, resist, and strive is biologically determined.

I would never counsel someone to live passively, taking whatever comes as fated to happen. On the other hand, I would never counsel someone that they can be whatever they want to be. There is a critical role for acceptance balanced with striving. We should strive to achieve (provided that what we want to achieve is worth having), but we should also accept who we are.

I can look back over my life now and accept that I made some really stupid, cockeyed decisions--not just when I was younger, but more recently too. It's way too late to start over (75 is not the ideal age to start a new career). But what one can do post-retirement is pursue avenues not previously investigated.

Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life — Jack Cummins

It really is a damn shame that this book wasn't taught in kindergarten. So many things would have been clear so much earlier.

I executed my stage presentation worse than many others did/do; preferred time back stage more than front stage; and sort of managed my presentation of self in everyday life. I just didn't realize that I was doing it, or that it could be done 'better', more congruously. I was, in a word, oblivious a good share of the time.

At the end of a voluntary public service stint Boston in 1970, I decided to grow a beard. When it was grown out, I realized that was the sort of anti-war demonstrator, hippyish, somewhat radical 'look' I had been looking for, and have kept it ever since, What was once curly brown is now white, but it still works. I generally have preferred working class clothes over 'professional dress' even though I was a professional (in education). Vestis virum reddit! Clothes make the man, they say,

Among the anti-war demonstrators, hippies, and several variety of radicals, there was a firm rejection of one kind of self-presentation (the corporate look) and a firm embrace of the counter-culture look. most of the counter cultural radicals eventually dumped the counter-cultural look and went back to the conventions of ordinary work life. The genuine long-term radicals I have known avoid counter-cultural appearance. It's all very confusing.

Back in the medieval period there were 'sumptuary laws' that specified what various classes of people could and could not wear--could not use in their self-presentation. For instance, fur and silk were forbidden to most people -- those being the preserve of the top class. Nicer colors were not to be found in peasants' clothing. It was a matter of considerable irritation when the shop keepers got their hands on a bit of silk or bright cotton and wore it in public. Disgusting!

At any rate, I have generally cultivated a deviant look -- just deviant enough to signal that I was busy marching to the beat of my own drummer. But in my old age, that's pretty much over. I'm not marching any more, and the world is too cluttered to know what is dominant and what is deviant (which is annoying).

@Jack Cummins This from PubMed.gov, T. A. Judge, D. M. Cable

Abstract

In this article, the authors propose a theoretical model of the relationship between physical height and career success. We then test several linkages in the model based on a meta-analysis of the literature, with results indicating that physical height is significantly related to measures of social esteem (rho =.41), leader emergence (rho =.24), and performance (rho =.18). Height was somewhat more strongly related to success for men (rho =.29) than for women (rho =.21), although this difference was not significant. Finally, given that almost no research has examined the relationship between individuals' physical height and their incomes, we present four large-sample studies (total N = 8,590) showing that height is positively related to income (beta =.26) after controlling for sex, age, and weight. Overall, this article presents the most comprehensive analysis of the relationship of height to workplace success to date, and the results suggest that tall individuals have advantages in several important aspects of their careers and organizational lives.

So, this showed some relationship between height and 'success'. I think the popular thinking is that height and success are strongly correlated. I'm 5'10" -- 178 cm tall, close to the average American male height of 175.4 centimeters). That's about 5 feet 9 inches. Obviously there are numerous other factors contributing to "success": weight, intellect, social background, race, sex, geographical location, personality factors, and so on. One reason for the popular thinking on height may be the relative success of tall males in school athletics. Short, light-weight boys are usually not going to be stars of the team. Even if lighter weight shorter males are excellent athletes in individual sports, those usually don't get the acclaim given to team sports.

Tall athletically successful males leave school with a certain amount of social capital (personal confidence, self-esteem, status...). What gave them social capital in school may be entirely irrelevant in corporate work settings, so performance has to be exhibited for the former stars to get ahead in their jobs. Never-the-less, self-confidence and self-esteem help.

Everyone knows tall men who did not succeed. The upshot: height helps but is not deterministic.

I am a gay man who was born with very poor vision. These two aspects of my embodiment proved problematic in my now-distant youth. In my rural midwestern world, homosexuality dared not speak its name, was sanctioned, stigmatized, etc. This ground has been covered by lots of writers. Visual impairment has been less well covered, at least in the popular press (never mind ophthalmology). Blindness, near blindness, low vision, etc. limited my experience of the world. So does any other sensory defect. They also limited / affected my social interactions.

I don't regret being gay; I do regret having poor vision. Perhaps in a cosmopolitan urban setting, these would have been less significant; maybe even insignificant. As it was, these were problematic until I finished college and set myself up in an large-urban setting.

Here's a specific example: Difficulty in reading texts which are too small to see easily interferes with learning. Too much attention is required to acquire the shapes of the text, not enough to absorb content. I have always been an enthusiastic reader, but would have read more and better if tablets with a few million downloadable books had been available in the 1950's and 60s. Technology really has made a difference to visually impaired people. (Yes, there were clunky work arounds back then, but this was the rural midwest, remember.)

Not seeing, not being able to drive, not being able to participate in sports (what ball? I don't see any ball), mediocre school performance, social exclusion, and so forth had a decidedly negative affect on my sense of personal efficacy--my sense of capacity to accomplish goals, and my self-esteem.

I think the sorts of experiences I had contributed to a more pessimistic philosophical approach to life, and a lower estimate of what is possible for me. Sure, over time I compensated, but successful compensation took a long time.

Whether we are embodied as a perfect specimen or as a problematic body, "being a body" is a critical issue, especially for problematic bodies (persons who are blind, deaf, missing limbs, paralyzed, disfigured, obese, ambiguously gendered--hermaphrodytism, and so on). Defects (my preferred term, not "differently abled"). Disabilities are a problem per se, but are compounded by negative social experiences.

"Who we are" is largely socially formed, and growing up as a disabled person may warp one's self image, and this warping ramifies in various ways for the individual: a sense of inferiority undermining social confidence; decreasing one's sense of personal efficacy (ability to accomplish goals); loss of at least some self-worth; and so on.

None of this is news; but insufficient attention has been paid to how we are embodied. In 1978 theologian James Nelson published Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology. I found it very useful in addressing my own issues.

The thing is, our bodies are the lens through which we experience the world, including the social world of other bodies. We can successfully counter distortions in this lens, but not without help--help which is not always available.

Bitter Crank What do you think of the idea that we are just productivity-agents for the superstructure? — schopenhauer1

As Uncle Karl said, one of the tasks of the working class is to reproduce society. And that's what we do -- not merely replacing dead bodies with babies, but diapering, feeding, protecting, and teaching them from 0 through graduate school. The whole society -- individuals and institutions -- has to be replaced IF the bourgeois classes are to continue accumulating wealth from the labor of the working class. Producing wealth is, of course, the other task of the working class.

We are not for ourselves, we are for others' purposes. If the bourgeoisie (the wealthy owners of everything that's worth having, pretty much) could produce everything with machines, they wouldn't need workers at all. And in fact, fewer workers are needed per pound of production than in the past. One farmer can operate a large farm [with large machinery. A computer and sensors on board the tractor guided by GPS keep track of yield by the square meter, and plant and fertilize accordingly.] Robots perform many of the tasks on the assembly line. Computers have replaced a lot of functions in the office.

Millions of working class men, white men in particular, have come face to face with their economic irrelevance. Their irrelevance is literally killing them (leading the men to drink, drugs, etc.)

The essential task, at this point, of much of society is to consume. 70% of the GDP goes into consumption. Were 'the people' to turn to thrift and a simpler lifestyle that wasn't organized around consuming, the economy would crash. There is a gradually increasing level of anxiety among people as they discover that going to work in order to consume is not very meaningful.

In the good old days, religion provided an anodyne for this discomfort. It provided meaning for people's lives. Martin Luther declared that all work was sacred. Farming, mining, carpentry, street cleaning, collecting garbage -- whatever -- is as sacred as the work of priests--that's the Protestant Work Ethic: work is a sacred activity. Luther (1483-1546) lived before our economic world began to come into existence. Still, one can look at work as sacred, because it contributes to the common good of all men. It does that IF it does that. One can certainly argue that a lot of work does not contribute to the commonweal. It's essentially pointless, or contributes to the wellbeing of a very narrow portion of 'men'--mostly very rich ones.

one can bitch, moan, and gripe — schopenhauer1

If you like bowling does that mean everyone should like bowling? If you like the whole "project" of the socio-cultural-economic enterprise of human existence, why must then others be pressed into this? — schopenhauer1

Commissar: "After the Revolution, there will be enough bowling alleys for all. Nice ones.
Worker: "But Commissar, I don't like bowling."
Commissar: "Comrade, after the Revolution bowling had better be your favorite activity."

You can be exempted from participating in the Fertility Follies. You can march to the beat of whatever drummer you like. Mass societies are willing to tolerate a few people being out of step, as long as it doesn't frighten the horses or annoy those in charge.

My experience has been that IF the horses are frightened, and IF those in charge are annoyed beyond their very modest limits, toleration comes to a screeching halt. Then the deviant discover how punitive mass society can be. No, they probably won't lynch you, jail you (more than a day or two), or bankrupt you with fines. There are plenty of other things Those In Charge cam arrange that one will not like.

But we all know that this is not cut-and-dry. Certainly one if one really wanted to, can refrain from sex for the rest of their life. It isn't as enjoyable as far as pleasure, but it is possible. — schopenhauer1

Of course it is "possible"; some people actually do remain celibate for all or much of their lives, some even without being monks, nuns, or priests. For most celibates, no-sex is a sacrifice (else it would have no value). For a few people, never having sex is a non-issue.

Roller coasters are also fun for many people — schopenhauer1

When it comes to roller coasters, I'm a celibate. Once was enough.

introspecting... they should. They have the capabilities to self-reflect on an existential level, why wouldn't they? — schopenhauer1

Come on, Schop; introspecting might be hard, or they did look into their inner beings, and found that there wasn't much there (he said, sarcastically).

... we can self-reflect on any given task, condition, state of affairs we are in AND we can aggregate and self-reflect on "EXISTENCE" as a whole. Why would we not question this practice of simply continuing this arrangement of (and I know I repeat..) — schopenhauer1

Two reasons: 1, the pain of continuing along as we have been is less than the possible pain of deviating from the path. 2. Analysis Paralysis. It's real: Examine a problem from enough different angles and one often finds there is no superior arrangement towards which one should move.

Change is not always successful, short, medium, or long run. Look where the great ideas of the Industrial Revolution have brought us. It all seemed like a great idea at the time. A couple of centuries later we discovered that we have been digging our own global grave.

We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them. — schopenhauer1

Yes, we can "evaluate what we are doing..." and can conclude that we do not like doing these things. That does not mean that we can then change without lifting up the great weight of the social overburden. There are good reasons why people don't behave the way we think they should.

There are preferences here that are being willed into existence for human existence to do the whole socio-economic-cultural thing. That THIS arrangement is good. We should like it. — schopenhauer1

I'll say here that these preferences are, in fact NOT willed. I do not believe we can WILL a liking or a preference into existence. If you do not like chocolate (some people don't) can you just decide that it is delicious and then enjoy it? No. Can a heterosexual will himself to find other men sexually attractive and then prefer to have sex with them? No. We can learn new tastes. People have to learn to like cigarettes. Having gotten addicted, they have to learn to like not smoking. Is the decision to smoke the same thing as willing to like cigarettes? No. The decision to smoke is willing to put up with a foul taste until one learns to like it. (Same thing with coffee, horseradish, fish sauce, etc.).

It is indisputable that we are a social species. We have inborn traits that PROPEL us into social behavior from kinderhood on up to ancient age. We don't will ourselves to be social -- we just are. (As Winston Churchill said, "It doesn't take all kinds of people to make a world, there just are.")

There is, as it happens, plenty of room for anti-natalists in this world. All of my best friends have avoided having children (easy for gay men to do). But a few of my heterosexual friends have also not wanted to bring children into this world, as they put it, and they didn't.

Antinatalists need Meet-Up groups; lodges, clubs, fraternities and sororities, associations, foundations. Bowling clubs, marching bands, nudist beaches, roller-coasters, coffee shops, bars, brothels, and bookstores. You all have got to BUILD THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT. Fucking will it into existence, dammit.

I can trace my slender but sufficient means to numerous decisions I made in college and in employment. I'm not complaining about my own case. And yes, I can see that many people made decisions that led to their having much more wealth than myself, placing them solidly in financial security. I'm not complaining about their cases either.

The kind of inequality that is also inequity is the share of wealth held by the 1% vs. the 99%.

The disparity of wealth between the 1% and 99% (which to a significant extent was engineered through tax law) distorts the whole economy. It isn't Mark's, Jeff's, and Bill's high-end furniture, wine cellar, and house as such that is the problem. It's the draining of cash out of the 99% that is the problem (see the French economist Thomas Pikety).