Contrast death with life which can not end--living forever--in this world, not in some afterlife.

I view death as either unfortunate (if it happens too soon and is brought about by accident) or a release (if it happens to old people who are ready to die).

I'm 77; I'm not quite ready to die yet, but my brother (83) is in hospice and will be released from multiple sufferings. I expect that in due time I will be in the same boat. If I should die suddenly (heart attack, stroke, run over by truck, etc.) I do not view the prospect as regrettable -- I've lived a reasonably long, reasonably good life.

All life ceasing to exist is a matter of vastly greater weight than our individual death. I'm in favor of life. The anti-natalists are welcome to not reproduce if that's what makes them happy.

I read the same version you read. I modified my narrative for narrative purposes and to harmonize with what Vera Mont had said (about sailing, volunteering to help abused donkeys) and so on. Flights of fancy are a drug I abuse periodically, but I never abuse donkeys.

it can be hard to feel loved — Tom Storm

That's how bicyclists feel when they get rained on a lot -- "It always rains on the unloved!"

an emotional imbalance or ennui. — Shawn

I'm not quite sure what an "emotional imbalance" is. Say more.

Ennui does not seem like a sufficient cause. Ennui -- listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement.. "he succumbed to ennui and despair". The definition (and many synonyms) don't seem to be sufficient to cause a flight to hard drugs for escape: boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, enervation, malaise, dissatisfaction, and so on. Someone who is "sluggish" would be more likely to resort to coffee than meth, wouldn't they? (They would if they were good Methodists, but I suppose a lot addicts are not Methodist.)

Despair, though, that seems like a sufficient cause. Despair, anomie, untreated major depression, extreme poverty (not by itself, but in conjunction with other factors), intense loneliness, feeling abandoned, the sense of not having a future worth living for (but not leading to suicide), and so on.

emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. — Shawn

So yes, emotional regulation as you say.

Thrill seeking is probably a driver too -- one that can trap the thrill seeker into coming back rather regularly for more thrills.

Let's not overlook the fact that drugs are not only sought out, they are also pushed. Methamphetamine wasn't called into common usage by thrill seekers always whining about there just not being any exciting drugs around. Meth was introduced to communities across the country by motorcycle gangs (Hells Angels) who had an interest in developing a market. Same thing goes for cocaine and heroin. People in small towns didn't wake up one day and say, "You know, we need heavy duty uppers and downers here in this fine small town. Let's help our good neighbors out by setting up contacts with a Mexican drug cartel and start a business here."

No. It was the other way around.

Indeed, one could almost say that hard drug producing countries (Myanmar, Afghanistan (opiates), Columbia (cocaine), China and Mexico (fentanyl) are engaged in biowarfare by flooding the United States and Europe (and other places) with drugs whose long term (or in the case of fentanyl--short term) use may result in death or disability.

getting drunk — Tom Storm

That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. Full disclosure: "flat out drunk" is something I have not achieved frequently. It usually ended poorly. Sociability is enhanced while one is getting drunk. One is livelier, wittier, more easily amused, etc. Once one is drunk enough to fall off the bar stool, lively wit is down the toilet (literally and figuratively).

Trauma does seem to be a factor -- trauma from childhood, trauma in battle, trauma in one's life... And some people (a fairly small percentage of the population) seem to be predisposed to addiction. For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver.

One abused donkey left the ship, joined up with a herd of elk and found happiness at last. Should @substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? (Story was in today's Guardian)

Perhaps volunteer to take a ship of abused donkeys on a hike?

I already do those things. — substantivalism

Great. So you get that part.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

"Management of the mind" is a critical part of finding interest, meaning, or bliss in life. It is quite possible to think/read/talk one's way into a dead end of unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and depressing ideas. Sometimes we have to give our books notice that they just aren't being very helpful, and go look elsewhere for inspiration.

Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

Of course governments, as deliberative, law/regulation/rule making, data-gathering, society managing agencies, have a negative view of drugs. Agents within the government see large numbers of people very negatively affected by their use of meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco. They see large amounts of money going down the drain on untaxed products, and they see the costs of medical care for alcoholism, lung cancer, addiction, and general dysfunction. (Yeah, cannabis fits in there in various ways.).

Magic mushrooms might be useful as a means of therapy or enlightenment. But nobody thinks that narcotics are therapeutic or enlightening. They are essentially cash cows by means of rapid and strong addiction. Tobacco and alcohol are also addicting, of course, Neither of them are "healthful" in any way, but people can get away using these drugs without immediate severe consequences (which arrive decades later).

Do people find relief in using tobacco, cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl...? Sure -- they get "relief" from the addictive craving. Tobacco smokers swear that smoking is relaxing, It isn't. Nicotine is a strong stimulant. But when one's body is due for another dose 10 to 30 minutes after the last dose, it feels good. The craving is relieved, but the CNS is not relaxed.

So, an addict overdue for the next dose is not in a state of homeostasis. The next snort, injection, pill, glass, smoke, dose, etc. brings them back to their normal state, but It is NOT NORMAL to require cocaine, meth, or heroin to feel OK.

We need not judge addicts as immoral, and we need not call their need for a drug normal.

I still don't understand what I'm to do aside from get it over with — substantivalism

What you are expected to do, and most likely what you can, you must, you shall, and you will do (after you get it over with) is find a job; inhabit hopefully decent housing; pay your bills; gradually pay off loans; shop for groceries; do laundry; establish a short/medium/long term relationship; and more! It's called LIFE. Most people are reasonably happy doing this stuff a good share of the time.

Does this sound bleak and unsatisfying? It might be dreary at times, but another task waiting to be done is finding ways of making your life meaningful and interesting as an adult.

Based on my 77 years of experience, I recommend that anyone NOT expect life to be meaningful and exciting all or most of the time. Life doesn't work that way because maintenance is necessary, time consuming, and is not all that exciting. Meaning and interesting experiences ARE possible, though. Look for the opportunities as you go along.

Does this help?

were on anti-psychotics — Outlander

Had they stayed on anti-psychotics, maybe many of the victims would still be alive.

Actually, I don't know how many mass shooters were or were not on anti-psychotics.

therefore our very biological apparatus is not actually "made" for the modern world. — merloz

I wasn't around 50,000 years ago, but I would imagine that life was not perfect then, either. There were 4-legged killers lurking behind 3 out of 7 trees; there were sneaky, slithery creatures with fatal fangs--good luck if you got bitten; people were then, as now, extremely annoying; the weather was atrocious at times. Glaciation, dust storms, volcanos, tornadoes, floods, cold snaps, heat waves, cancer, etc. One could never be sure of finding enough to eat, or somebody else would take it away from you,

My guess is that our cave-dwelling Neanderthal cousins and Homo sapiens predecessors would have happily accepted an Rx for anxiety, depression, and the occasional psychosis had they been offered.

Here's a thought: perhaps the future of humanity will continue to be linked to the consumption of psychiatric medications, not only for those who actually have mental illnesses and disorders but also to help the average person navigate a modern world that is out of sync with our natural way of living from an evolutionary perspective. — merloz

Bear in mind that psychotropics haven't been around for very long, Barbituates, tricyclics, benzodiazepines, and the major anti-psychotic phenothiazines (like thorazine) were invented in the 20th century (except for barbituates which were first formulated in the late 19th century, though barbiturate use did not become common until 50+ years later).

Beauty is certainly a good thing, whether it is manifested in. person, a horse, a building, a forest, or the Milky Way. It is not the same thing or equivalent to goodness. A good house or a good man may or may not be "beautiful". People sometimes modify "goodness" with "beautiful". They may even mean that goodness is beautiful. It seems like "goodness" is a sufficiently high quality that it doesn't require further elevation,

Individuals have that opportunity, towns, cities and countries don't really. — Sir2u

Exactly.

It's good to bring these issues to the fore, not because we hand-wringing Cassandras need more reason for anxious predictions of doom, but because they are the facts of life and death.

The Southwest Quarter of the US and a Northern Quarter of Mexico have been (as far as I know) dry lands for many centuries. Not perpetually bone-dry, but rarely generously wet. As a result, population levels in these areas have always been appropriately low to match the carrying capacity of the land. The balance began to tip in the 19th century, with the westward expansion of the US. Major imbalance between water demand and water supply got going in the 20th century, as a result of population growth in the whole region.

The people and industries (factories and farms) that operate in this area have become water-debtors, and they are in deep and deepening debt. Just for example, the unsustainable city of Phoenix, AZ (pop. 1.6 million) operates a power plant solely to run the pumps that suck up water from the Colorado River and lift it over the mountains. California, Nevada, Arizona, Mexico, et al have claims on the Colorado that exceed conceivable supply.

The point is, there are no easy, cheap, convenient, or pleasant solutions to the shortfall of water supply, short of people, agriculture, and industry leaving for somewhere else (don't ask me where they should go).

This is a global problem, brought on by growing populations conflicting with climate change--8,000,000,000+ vs 1.5º+. Rain is becoming even more unpredictable than it has always been, between being the extremes of absence and falling in crop-wrecking, infrastructure-ruining, people-killing deluges.

There are problems too large to be managed into submission. My own Cassandra Prophecy is that global warming will create more and varied problems which will be insurmountable in many places.

Priorities? Certainly, some problems are more important than other problems, but those with the most resources in reserve are going to decide what problems are dealt with first. For many problems, help is NOT on the way.

Agreed. But I wonder if much of the billions of dollars goes into Coca-Cola for their bottled water and services related to that, rather than maintain an adequate public water supply.. — schopenhauer1

Elko New Market, a small but growing Twin Cities (Minnesota) suburb in Scott County, uses about 125 million gallons of water a year. The City Council last year offered more than $3 million in subsidies to California-based Niagara Bottling, which sells bottled water to Walmart and Costco, to open a plant in Elko New Market. The company plans eventually to draw 310 million gallons of city water a year to bottle, ship and sell across the country.

.

I don't like it. First, $3 million in subsidy smells like a city council desperate to get some sort of development project going, We don't know how much Niagara Water will pay for the water, or how much the large scale pumping will disrupt the water quality for locals. We don't know how long Niagara's pumping can go on before the acquirer is depleted.

A gallon of water sold in wasteful and polluting small plastic bottles is worth much more to business that the ordinary uses the local people use the water for. So, the locals get screwed.

I'd like to add to my OP, that I don't quite understand the 1960's that well. I know it was the counterculture movement; but, I don't understand why it became a fascination with drugs... I mean, it was about peace, love, and political activism; but, why the popularity arose to drugs? — Shawn

It's a very good question, "Why are drug so popular?"

I did not use drugs very often during the 1960s and 70s; I did not try mescaline when the rest of the group tried it. Never did magic mushrooms, LSD, or any thing else aside of tobacco and alcohol, and pot, once in a while, when somebody offered it. Clearly, many people find drug use a rewarding experience, for pleasure, for novel mental experiences, and so on. People who become addicted (opiates, cocaine, meth...) experience the pleasure of the drug and the pleasure of quelling the unpleasantness of the drug wearing off. That goes for alcohol and tobacco, too.

Today the German Federal Government announced that last year they had seized a shipment of something like 9 tons of cocaine valued at more than 2 billion dollars. That's a lot.

It's true now, it has been true for quite a long time, that drug production is an organized activity. The large quantities of drugs produced, be it big bales of weed or barrels of Fentanyl, demonstrate production prowess. Drugs are produced, distributed, packaged, sold, and promoted. Not saying there are hawkers on the street crying out that they have cocaine laced with fentanyl. But promotion takes place, none the less--a lot of it by and among users. Where a drug is legalized (be it tobacco, alcohol, cannabis...) promotion becomes overt.

if I could have one condition granted to bestow upon my enemy or targeted population, it would be for them all to be high. Very high. — Outlander

I think one could make a case for foreign actors attacking the United States through the smuggling/importation of addictive and toxic substances, like fentanyl. I have never might a frequent drug user (cannabis, cocaine, meth...) who demonstrated societal benefit from their drug use.

But my question was why that wouldn’t it be priority number 1. — schopenhauer1

If you get a stone in your shoe, you will remove it right away because it is immediately too uncomfortable. If you can get water somewhere, even if it is inconvenient and maybe not all that clean, one will adapt. If all of the water--pure or putrid--is gone. dried up, one will pull up stakes. People will make many accommodations where putting up with third best is better than nothing.

Life is full of examples, and not trivial ones, of people adjusting to poor conditions--because despite their low quality and inconvenience, they are just passable enough.

People who are trying very hard to earn enough money for food, clothing, shelter, maybe school for their children, and so on, likely do not have a lot of energy left over at the end of the day, Being poor in a poor country is exhausting. Organizing for clean water, good schools, better control of the sewage in the street, better wages (or wages at all), and so on takes more energy than the people have left at the end of the day.

Clean water is something a good government can, should, ought, and must supply to its citizens with the least resources. Alas, many governments are pretty bad. The point is, heavy infrastructure takes top-down effort.

A similar phenomenon has been taking place around cities like Nairobi, Kenya. Kenyans who can no longer make a living as marginal farmers move to an urban center. The built-up and serviced city center isn't designed to absorb new populations. The rural-to-urban transferees put up whatever housing they can, all crowded together. There are, of course, no provisions for fresh water, sewer, paving, drainage, and so on. Why, one might ask, would anybody put up with this? Partly because they didn't have freshwater, sewer, paving, drainage, and so on where they came from, and there are more opportunities in Nairobi, even if one is living in an a very makeshift community.

I grew up in a house with one cold water tap. Hot water had to be heated on the stove. There was one wash bowl (a bowl, not a plumbing fixture), and one toilet for 7 people. No tub. No shower. Was this a great privation? Were we ridiculed at school? No, because more than a few rural families lacked an indoor toilet and had no indoor running water. Did they think it was terrible to live that way? No.

Would I be happy going back to a wash bowl and taking a bath in a galvanized tub with a skimpy amount of water? Of course not. But it's one's recent history that determines whether one is moving up in the world, or not.

The water potability problem — schopenhauer1

I don't know. Why aren't people nice to each other?

Much of Africa, Latin America, and Asia have both water supply and potability problems. Solving these problems for rural and urban areas requires different kinds of solutions -- all involving a great deal of time, effort, and cash.

London started building its big sewer system starting around 1860. New York built its first aqueduct for drinking water around the same time. All that was just a start -- cities all over the world have to work on their water and sewer infrastructure all the time to keep it running,

Randomly responding.

I know almost nothing about Mexico City's water problems or politics, which is no obstacle for offering an opinion on the matter.

No city on earth has perfectly pure water pouring from its pipes. Why isn't everybody sick? Because the locals have developed tolerance for (at least some of) the bacteria, viruses, and other organisms that might be (probably are) in the water. A traveler from outside the US might become mildly ill from water in an American city.

Fresh water, without respect to its cleanliness, is becoming scarcer in many countries around the world, including the US. Why? Heavy use, for one. A lot of water is used for agriculture. Some industries use a lot of water, and water is wasted from leaking distribution pipes. Global warming is reducing the supply of fresh water in many parts of the world.

Were I traveling to Mexico City, I might bring some iodine tablets to drop into a pitcher of tap water for brushing and rinsing. For larger amounts of water, say 5 gallons, a little calcium hypochlorite would do the trick.

Why doesn't Mexico do something about the water?

Cost, for one. Fresh water, and its flip side--sewage--are expensive infrastructure to build, maintain, and operate. The cleaner the water and the better the sewage treatment, the higher the cost. About 9 million people live in Mexico City, so...

Efficient Effective and Persistent Effort are required to solve large urban infrastructure problems. Perhaps the 3 Es are somewhat lacking.

First World Countries suffer the water problems too. Up until the 1980s, the metropolitan Twin Cities area had combined storm and sanitary sewers. Fine during dry weather. When it rained a lot, the combined sewers overflowed into the Mississippi River--shit and all. States downstream -- particularly Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois found this annoying, and sued to force the cities to separate the sewers. It took a decade and a lot of digging, but the sewers were separated and water quality below the Twin Cities was improved.

Calculate how many toilets the water for New Orleans has passed through. Still, the water in NOLA is pretty clean.

Mexico will clean up their water as soon as they solve the cartel problem.

More like YouTube's vinyl collection; I first heard the song on the Prairie Home
Companion. There is, though, a pile of titles, jokes, and quotes waiting for just the right occasion. I want to use as many as possible before I die, which could be any day now.

Worse than Milwaukee? Lord. Though the UK is having problems for sure, thanks to Brexit. According to a 50+ year old National Lampoon thought piece, Deteriorate.

Take heart in the deepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.

Donald Trump stepped out of the pages of the National Lampoon, not knowing he was a bad joke.

Very good! There's a chronic shortage of good soviet jokes.

Seemingly, as you are the only person who addressed the OP's sentiments about Soviet styled central managers, then I just wanted to say, that the importance of well qualified managers in any society has been something that has concerned the elite of any nation for a long time. — Shawn

The State of Minnesota, which prides itself on efficient and effective administration, was defrauded of nearly $250,000,000 (a quarter billion) by a group of Somali mafioso operators who recognized weaknesses in a state agency (Education) charged with managing a large pot of Covid 19 money. A lot of the money was intended to provide food for children and families.

By setting up fake programs, fake budgets, fake food purchases, and fake beneficiaries, the group walked off with truck loads of cash. The cash ended up in the hands of various luxury goods sellers and real estate agents. During a recent trial of several of the 100+ defendants, the defense misused the names and addresses of the otherwise anonymous jury members, and a bag of $100,000 in cash was offered to a juror for a "not guilty" vote. That added crime is under FBI investigation. To Minnesota's credit, the juror called 911 to report the attempted bribe.

Where were the presumably competent state accountants and State agency managers who let a big hunk of cash run through their fingers like shit through a tin pipe?

The trials are returning a lot of guilty verdicts to date, but as far as I know, no heads have rolled at the Minnesota Department of Education, yet.

If basic human needs for all human beings in a given society can be fulfilled from very little human work, the work being taken over by machines, then what drives the need for further work from those human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

An excellent question!

We haven't reached the point yet where machines perform all of the labor necessary to meet human needs. We have, however, passed the point where machines (powered machines, automation, even robots and computer-operated machines) and human labor can produce a substantial surplus of what we need. We could significantly reduce human labor (but not eliminate it at this point). I do not have a figure in mind. For discussion purposes, let's say we could reduce human labor by at least 20%.

There is no end to what human beings want; let's stick to needs.

At this point, human beings continue to seek paid work because of the general rule those who do not work do not eat. Or at least, they don't eat very well.

The simplified way of looking at an economy is that workers are hired by capitalists to produce goods and receive a paycheck. The paycheck is used to buy what the worker and his family need to survive. (Consumption is something close to 3/4 of the American economy.) If workers are not needed to produce, then there is no paycheck for workers to buy food, clothing, and shelter.

In this simplified view, the unnecessary worker and his unnecessary family are totally screwed. However, so is the capitalist. If there are no consumers, to whom does he sell what the machines now produce?

One solution is for the state to provide an income that is not tied to previous labor--maybe $10,000 a year for a couple (seems low to me; pick your own figure). With this payment, the couple buy what they need. The producers receive an income to operate their factories. The "compulsion" or irrational drive to work for one's needs might still be present. Perhaps workers will find jobs producing for infinite wants but not needs. IMHO, that is an untenable basis for operating society -- it's not sustainable within the search to halt or slow global warming, and our infinite wants are already an environmental death trap.

Some authors have speculated that, given complete automation, a large share of workers will become obsolete / redundant / unemployed / unnecessary / a nuisance. Then what?

There must be some innate aspect of men -hormonal or otherwise, that means gay guys are less likely to have a strict monogamous lifelong relationship. — Benj96

An evolutionary aspect is that males in many species have lower reproduction costs than females. Caring for offspring may require many months of effort. Another evolutionary aspect is that in many species males can mate with successive partners, while females tend to cease mating after fertilization. Our primate relatives may be quite disreputably (or admirably) promiscuous, depending on one's POV.

Whatever evolution has to say, humans need (and like) to have lasting, loving relationships with others. That said, humans also like to have sexual adventures and novel excitements--both, if possible. Social norms, mores, customs, rules, and regulations try to apply the brakes on said sexual adventures and novel excitements, for the sake of the children, motherhood, community, and the State. For the most part, all that works reasonably well.

In modern societies (post 1875, say) where immigration, lots of population movement, new technologies, social disruption, and so on resulted in looser societal controls and more atomization, some individuals found themselves outside settled community and were thus able to pursue whatever desires they had. Rates of prostitution rose rapidly. The notorious saloons of the prohibition movement were another result.

Unfettered social rules made it possible for gay men to meet and mate outside the palisades of social control. A subculture of promiscuous sex followed, and flourished when and where possible. "Possible" was governed by how much effort a given police force was willing to expend on suppressing this sub-culture. So, this subculture was not usually wide open and public, but kept a low profile and carried on its activities wherever it was possible.

Urban environments are favored places for cultural innovation, invention, sexual adventures, and novel experiences. So with gay male culture. Besides, there aren't enough gay men per square mile of prairie, farm, and forest to provide for partners, let alone promiscuity. Consequently, gay men tend to move toward larger urban centers -- along with any other mobile people who want more opportunities to succeed in life.

I believe a fixed percentage of men are born gay. It's not a large cohort--maybe 2% or 3%. Nature does its part, but then culture decides how gayness will or will not be expressed. Many people in Uganda, for example, believe that homosexuality does not exist there. In that context, expression of gayness is going to be very muted, for self-protection. Kampala, Uganda -- a city of 1.5 million, might offer more opportunity for expression. However, in a country where homosexual activity is a newly defined capital crime (life imprisonment or death for "aggravated homosexuality"), it won't be very open there, either.

There are costs to living outside the security of marriage and family, but there are certainly costs to living within marriage, as well.

There's a song about that!

Developing inoculation and a vaccine for a major infectious disease killer was a very good thing. Also very good were public health strategies which deployed the vaccine in the most effective and efficient manner, so that smallpox was eradicated in 1977. The approach was vaccinating the circle of contacts surrounding each new case of smallpox. As the years passed, there were fewer and fewer cases, till finally, the last one.

I was vaccinated for smallpox I'm 1964 -- still a somewhat routine thing then.

Note: The US and Russia both hold samples of the variola virus that causes smallpox. Will the virus ever escape its deep-frozen storage vials?

Yes it was. Fascism is certainly among the highest scorers in any corpse counting contest.

For the love of Janice, is no one going to say, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"?

The soviet experience of communism, such as it was, was no more an 'experiment' than our 'experiment' in democracy, such as it is. Which is to say, they were both altogether in earnest.

People have busily tabulated the flaws of both the Soviet Union and the United States (and numerous other countries) so I don't need to do that. You all have your own preferred list; so do I.

with central managers being coal workers or shoe salesmen, then it wouldn't seem hard to conclude that the whole endeavor would have failed. — Shawn

They had shoe salesmen in the Soviet Union? Why was I not informed?

Look, there's nothing about shoe salesmen or coal workers which prohibits them from being good managers, but various revolutionary sources assign workers managerial tasks only as they become educated and experienced enough to be effective managers. Motivated shoe and coal workers can acquire managerial skills on the job and in classrooms. I know American workers who, though lacking BAs and MBAs, have the talent and experience to be great managers. The higher in the organization one goes, the more that is expected. We all know professional managers, with Harvard MBAs to boot, who should or will or did get the boot.

Corpse counting is tricky, so there is that. Just off the cuff, I'll grant that communistic and authoritarian regimes have an outstanding record of killing people who got in the way. Perhaps capitalistic, democratic-ish nations and empires have have crappier figures for millions of dead victims, but I am pretty certain that the figures are high enough so that we will not be too embarrassed.

One could even say that great enterprises like revolution, colonialism, imperialism, communism, capitalism, and so on generally entail breaking trainloads of eggs on the way to the grand soufflé.

"Freedom", like Truth, Goodness, Evil, Beauty, etc. is one of those grand concepts that are often deployed but damned hard to pin down.

In a world where there are many constraints imposed by physics, biology, culture, politics, law, other people, etc., "freedom" is clearly constrained from the getgo. Perhaps it is more productive to identify small spheres of activity in which we are "free" to / from / and of per @Vera Mont. I am, presumably, free to respond to your post, or not. I am not free of a lifetime of hearing freedom defined in various ways. I am not sure whether or not I am free from a compulsion to talk about freedom.

Better to be a sad Socrates than a smug swine — 180 Proof

John Stuart Mill said in an essay titled A PIG, A FOOL, AND SOCRATES: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.

That's not quite as pithy as your version.

The underlying observation of Solipsism is that we only ever experience Sensory Data. — Treatid

You are underestimating sensory data.

If you are relaxing at the beach, eyes closed, listening to the waves, day dreaming... and somebody dumps a bucket of ice water on you, that's a very compelling wash of sensory data. Or, if you wade out into the water and a shark bites your leg off, that's another compelling experience of sensory data. If you have enough pennies to dine at a really fine restaurant, you will have one course after another of splendid sensory data.

Your senses have evolved over 600 million years of contact with the harsh sensory data of the world. In the case of ice water, shark bite, and fine food, it seems like you are in pretty direct contact with objective reality.

Your mind isn't in direct contact, but your body is.

I'm reminded of the Gom Jabbar test in Dune: — punos

This film depicts the scene and the characters from the book the way I imagined it. Always a plus.

Dogs seem to be able to suppress desires -- like not lunging forward to grab the treat dangling in front of it until an OK is registered. For sure, not an ability the Bene Gesseret would find interesting, but a capacity in animals upon which we built (in evolutionary time).

What a relief! There is nothing wrong with your eyeballs -- the problem is behind them.

Riffing on @punos...

There is such a thing as muscle memory. While I type this, I do not -- cannot -- control my fingers consciously. In the same way, I have difficulty fitting my bicycle lock into its holder IF I look at it while perform the task. My arm and hand muscles know how to do this; visual information gets in the way.

If you use your phone a lot, you are using muscle memory to touch the various 'points' on the screen that result in actions. Having 3 home screens complicates the task. Points that deliver one result on screen 3 won't do the same thing on screen. You know that already.

I am not a heavy mobile phone user, but I also have 3 screens. Being an occasional user, I have to look at the screen to navigate and touch the right points.

Precisely coordinated eye/hand actions, or coordinating two separate actions on an object (sliding the screen right or left and touching point 'x') is not a sure-fire thing--as the video shows.

Fortunately for all of us, there is no risk of you launching nuclear missiles by touching the wrong app icon.

Any performance can usually be improved. I suggest you slow down (at the cost of semi-seconds).

1 Practice picking up the phone and determining which screen you are on. Focus. (A semi-second?)
2. Practice sliding the screen WITHOUT touching the app icon automatically. In other words, suppress the automatic action. (This may be slightly painful. You will survive.)
3. Visually confirm that you are looking at the desired screen. (<1/2 second)
4. Touch the desired icon,

Rearranging the icons would help you slow down (again costing you a second or two). Or, maybe only the most important icons should be on screen 1. You can afford to slow certain actions in order to achieve more accurate results.

Some athletes have improved performance by visualizing how they carry out a given move, like pitching a ball. The visualize themselves carrying out the action perfectly. This, alone, isn't going to make a huge difference, but it can help improve performance along with actual practice.

Happily, your mobile phone and you will have a long and happier relationship.

We exist within a simulation, and as it happens the software has developed glitches. There is nothing the occupants of a simulation can do about the software/hardware.

Just joking.

On the one hand, there is the function of the eyeballs. Various factors can affect the way the images are received by the retina and then transmitted. On the other hand, there is the way the visual cortex in the brain processes the signals from the eyes, Other parts of the brain are involved in responding to vision (or hearing, taste, touch, smell, proprioception, balance, and so on).

That's about the extent of my understanding. Do you have perceptual aberrations (if that's what you are experiencing) in other contexts? Are you under the influence of any drugs -- prescribed or otherwise? Are your visual experiences problematic for you (like, it interferes with visual tasks besides the cell phone problem)?

As noted above, all this is in the bailiwick of ophthalmologists. You could make an appointment to have your vision checked out.

Given the wholesale slaughter caused by trolleys, banning them is way overdue. Also ban fat people, bridges over trolleys, and switches. If there are no trolleys, no one will be run over. No fat man will be thrown from the bridge to save 5 thin people. Promiscuous travel in the city will be sharply curtailed with resulting gains in public health. Best of all, the creative destruction of the hazardous trolleys will open the opportunity for Uber and Lyft.

were you as monogamous as your typical hetero male/female couple — Hanover

I was not as monogamous as heterosexual-male/female couples are supposed or alleged to be.

My question then is whether actual lesbian behavior is as promiscuous as man on man affection — Hanover

My impression is that lesbians are generally not as promiscuous as gay men have tended to be. However, my information is now quite dated. The lesbians on Grey's Anatomy were certainly quite frisky. I haven't been out mixing in the gay community for 35 years. Did legalized marriage change behavior? Perhaps. The broader culture changed as well. "Gay Liberation" was partly a consequence of the '60s, rolling on into the 70s. AIDS brought the free-for-all up short by the mid '80s.

Have social / sexual norms grown more conservative over the last 40 years? It seems like it, but if more conservative society isn't more stable. If anything, society seems less stable now. Does instability lead to more cautious social behavior?

The physical environment in which sexuality is enacted has changed. Places that facilitated promiscuous sexual activity -- like bath houses, police-free parks, cruisy locations, etc. have been eliminated in many cities. The gay bar business isn't as lively as it used to be, owing to the increased use of social media.

There were about 1.2 million same-sex couple households in the United States in 2021, according to recently released Census Bureau data.

Roughly 710,000 of the same-sex couple households were married and about 500,000 were unmarried.

That seems like a lot, but if 4% of the population are gay or lesbian, then that is only 1.1 million who coupled and/or married out of 10.3 million over the age of 18. Inquiring minds would like to know what all the 9 million single gays and lesbians are doing.

"Straight men aren't promiscuous like gay men because straight women don't let them." she said.

Women, families, mortgages, careers, churches, etc. all tend to tame straight male behavior. Gay marriage, mortgages, careers, churches, etc. tends to do the same thing for gay male behavior.

Men who do not live within the usual sex-limiting social structures can be more promiscuous. For that matter, men and women who do not live within the usual social structures of marriage, mortgages, careers, churches, and so on are perhaps freer to be political outsiders as well.

Humans are not naturally and deeply civilized. "Civilized behavior" is a hard-won achievement. Loosen the bonds, and we dispense with inconvenient trappings of civilization. Promiscuous gun use, promiscuous sex. In both cases there are resulting fatalities.

Parsnip and rhubarb combo? I don't believe I've encountered that particular bouquet.