A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. — Philosophim

To hell with it, then.

what we do isn't "pure" (by that I mean for the benefit of someone else) but rather is ultimately just rooted in selfishness. — Darkneos

Even anonymous sex in the dark has meaning to the two (or more, I suppose) people sexually engaged. When one masturbates alone, it's for the benefit of the self. Masturbate with somebody else at hand, and it is no longer exclusively for the self.

When two people who are fond of each other, or in the initial heat of new love, sex is reciprocal. One's gratification is enhanced by the others' responses, in a pleasurable spiral.

Of course, relationships can become desiccated and chilled; ordinary nurturing acts (like preparing food) can become onerous--never mind sex which might continue as a perfunctory routine close to masturbation with nobody present.

What humans do is never ("Never?" "no, never!" "Never?" Well, hardly ever.") pure anything. No pure good, no pure evil, no pure selfishness, no pure generosity...

First we need to define man and woman. — Philosophim

1) A man is a male person because they had an xy chromosome, testicles, a penis, and a prostate gland at birth. His mature reproductive sex role is to eject sperm during sexual intercourse.

2) A woman is a female person born with an xx chromosome, ovaries, a uterus, a vagina, fallopian tubes, a cervix, etc. Her reproductive role is to produce an egg for fertilization by sperm after sexual intercourse, and harbor the developing fetus for 9 months.

3) Men and women both have sex roles which can function separately from their reproductive roles, so that they can engage in sexual activities for the purpose of pleasure. Men and women can engage in solitary sexual stimulation for the purpose of pleasure, and they can engage in non-reproductive sexual activity with same-sex partners.

# 1 and # 2 provide the minimal definition of male and female. Humans share this definition with the at least all vertebrates, but with many invertebrates as well. Plants also have sexual characteristics.

Men are males and women are females. I hope no one heard it here first. Men and women have biologically driven sex roles, and socially / culturally driven gender roles, which are considerably more plastic than their actual sex roles. However, a female heavy equipment driver and a male nurse are not less woman and man because their occupation crosses gender roles. A woman can be the breadwinner in a family and a man can be the nurturing parent and home maker, again without violating the standard sex role. That said, a very large share of the world's population follows gender roles typical for men and women in their society.

For the vast majority of the world's population, genitals and genders match. Sometimes individuals opt to perform the opposite sex's gender role as "drag" theater. Drag acts may be remarkably entertaining and convincing, but at the end of the show, the man in a dress or the woman in a cowboy's outfit return to whatever their "day-time" gender role is.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for?

Granted, some people think "man" and "woman" refer to stereotypical roles normally performed by one or the other gender. In their view, something is wrong with both the female truck driver and the male nurse. In Archie Bunker terms, the woman is a dyke and the man is a pansy. Still, it probably IS the case, that the woman driving the semi may be a little different; like maybe more mechanically oriented than the typical woman. And it may be that the male nurse is a more capable nurturer than many males, as well as having the technical skill to perform in a hospital setting.

However much some people may be confused by men and women working in the opposite gender's field, my guess is that their actual sex role performance is completely conventional.

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes. — Philosophim

My thinking has changed over the years. 50 years ago, I accepted the concepts of transsexualism as a valid explanation for a profound personal dissatisfaction with life as they had experienced it. As "trans ideology" has developed, I have no confidence that it is a valid concept.

Trans men and women are engaged in an elaborate "drag" performance. Usually, drag is performed on a stage of some sort, for a short period of time. Afterwards, the performer goes back to their customary style in life. Drag can be quite elaborate, or relatively simple. I can understand extending one's man/woman drag act into one's whole life, and announcing that one is now a woman or a man. I don't know why, but some people find the opposite sex's roles and ways of being far more attractive than their own sex's ways of being. BUT, the person performing a drag act, for 10 minutes or 10 years, remains the sex he or she was born with, and no amount of costuming, hair styling, cosmetics, surgery, hormones, occupational change, etc. can change that.

I don't want to suggest that there are all kinds of drag acts that everyone is engaged in. However, many people conduct themselves in roles which are quite at odds with their everyday life. Otherwise quite conventional people may be members of political groups whose programs are incompatible with their conventional life (whether that be far right or far left). Some people's sex lives are wildly inconsistent with the sort of life they lead during work hours. Some people's literary or musical preferences are a complete mis-match with their expected choices--75 year old women performing punk rock, for instance (an actual thing).

Fine. That's what makes life interesting and meaningful for people. And it is valid as long as their preferences are not claimed to make them "different kinds of people". In my own case, I could have pretended to be a member of a revolutionary cell, committed to violent regime change. I could have pretended to be an academic scholar, committed to (oh, some standard field of study... whatever). I could have pretended to be a radical sexual renegade, engaging in wild sexual activities. So, in my case, I was a peaceful leftist, kind of academically oriented but not an academic, and a conventionally promiscuous gay guy. I have led a sober, conventional life as a gay man. My "drag act" was very tame.

So yes, trans men and women are performing an extensive drag act. I am sure this view is rejected by trans people. But it isn't so unusual for ordinary men and women to occupy unconventional roles: women who drive heavy construction equipment; men who raise children by themselves; men who are nurses; women who are soldiers. They perform these opposite sex-roles without being confused about their own actual sex role.

People can and do form relationships with objects: a car, a house, a plant. It seems to be a natural habit of humans, say, early on with the little child's comfort blanket. Objects, however, do not simulate; a car and a geranium are the real 'it' thing. Artificial intelligence is designed (manufactured) to simulate a pseudo, false, 'thou', or at the very least, a glittering, lovely, seductive, difficult-to-resist 'it'.

The 'AI it' has all the loveliness of a snazzy new car, a new up-market house, the latest and greatest gaming system--whatever it is that turns one on. But, no matter how much we invest ourselves in various glittery, seductive, irresistible objects, they are still objects.

Companies are no more (and no less) to blame for making an 'AI it' seductive than a car company is for making a vehicle sexy. Making goods and services attractive is one of the critical pieces of maintaining GDP. AI is, after all, nothing but a product offered by corporations hoping to profit enormously, just like Google Search or a chip maker (thinking AMD, not Lays).

Consumers, users, dupes? make the mistake of interpreting intelligible machine generated text as thoughtful writing. Or they interpret the approximation of caring language for actual caring. Or, interpreting whatever they get as whatever they are seeking. The 'AI it' is a capable imitator, an impressive simulation, certainly. AI can make a better picture than I can; it can find far more relevant information far faster than I can; it's better and faster at summarizing acres of text than anyone I know. I like using the service an 'AI it' provides.

Still and all, it's just another product from a market-creating, market driven industry.

I like the term "simulated" as opposed to "artificial". The two terms are not very far apart, but (in my mind at least) "simulated" emphasizes 'the creation of an appearance which is not real'. Something that is artificial may be real; artificial sweeteners are real substances. A simulation only appears to be real (but may be quite convincing).

"AI" isn't real intelligence, as you explained.

We've all seen that SI produces remarkable output, once it is triggered. So has the Google algorithm or the Amazon algorithm, once it is asked a question. Navigation guidance algorithms are pretty impressive too - recognizing that you missed the turn, then automatically figuring out how to correct your error. These all seem "intelligent", until they don't.

Perhaps the reason why so many people are excited, impressed, and/or fooled is that they think that the SI programs ARE real, just not human.

One of the reasons why Japan and Korea are experiencing population decline, and the United States is not, is that they are very reluctant to allow immigration into their countries. They have strong ethnic identities which is fine--as long as the people are reproducing. Americans would face declining population problems as well, but for the steady stream of young immigrants who bolster our population.

There are enough people younger than 25 in the world -- 42%, +/-, to solve the problem of declining population, at least for a period of time. However, Europe and China would have to be open to admitting ethnically diverse people.

I have no idea how population will be distributed by age, location, and income in 100 or 200 years, under future conditions at least as good as the past 1 or 2 hundred years. "At least as good" is unlikely to prevail, if it hasn't already come to an end.

Global warming, rising and warming oceans, more irregular climate behavior, declining supplies of fresh water, changing disease patterns around the world, problems with food production, etc. ALL make future conditions probably very challenging and possibly catastrophic. Specific populations and economies may not just decline, they may crash. These will all affect demographic disorder.

So individual human lives being a crap shoot doesn't seem incompatible with panspermia. — wonderer1

Of course not. Seriously:

One of humankind's problems with seeding life on other planets is that our lives, our civilizations, are too short to know how such an experiment turned out and to improve on our methods. Let's say that we have already (accidentally) seeded Mars with some bacteria. It might well be at least 10,000 or 50,000 years--who knows--before the innoculation could have achieved visible success. 1000 years is a very, very long time for us; 10,000,100,000, or 1,000,000 years is too long for us to pay attention to something so slow, even if we still exist for a million years more. (Now, if seeding bacteria turned Mars green in 50 years, that we would probably notice.)

Presumably an intelligent designer of planetary life would have the longevity to monitor results over the very long term.

More likely, panspermia was/is/would be an unguided process without intelligent agents.

I do not know how far ejecta from a planet in our solar system can travel. We know rocks from Mars are on earth, and maybe visa versa. Farther out in the solar orbits? I have not the faintest idea. I don't know how likely it is that ejecta from another solar system planet could travel to even a close by solar system and bear intact biological material.

I don't think life on earth (and elsewhere) required a primer, like a batch of organic chemicals. It seems like earth had the wherewithal to generate basic amino acids, for instance. All the elements (O, FE, N, etc.) which could be used were here. Given time, given a reasonably rich soupy environment, life will develop. It might have happened more than once (maybe many times) right here. It also might have failed to achieve a toe-hold (no toes yet) in the existing environment, and that also might have happened more than once.

Having achieved a cell of some sort containing biological functions, life could take off in any direction and proceed forward as long as the environment was reasonably stable and rich enough. The last time I looked at drawings based on Precambrian fossils was too long ago to say anything about it, but it seems like "weirdness" was a feature of earlier life forms, compared to later life forms. Weirdness should be expected.

The initiation of life processes was a crap-shoot, and organisms have been rolling the dice ever since.

"Scientists are now seriously asking if humans were seeded by aliens. Here's why" — RogueAI

I don't care whether life on earth was seeded or just happened in a warm little puddle. In either case, life is here, as likely or unlikely as that may be in the universe. Most likely there is life elsewhere as well, perhaps very different than the life in which we are participants. Whether we are the only life in the universe, or whether the universe is crawling with life--either way is amazing.

should guided evolution also be taken seriously — RogueAI

I reject intelligent design and guided evolution because, at least in the case of humans, we seem to have various problems that the ever-so-wise agents of intelligent design and guided evolution should have been able to avoid. (Or the intelligent designers and evolutionary guides were sons of bitches who knew damn well they were putting bad code in the Big Plan.)

Also, @RogueAI this isn't a sorry, sorrier, or sorriest thread.

Both of you raise well reasoned objections to my post about hate speech which I have referred to the Department of Opinions to be Reconsidered. In the meantime, I'll try to avoid hate.

My problem with hate speech laws is based on just what I see here in the United States. It isn't a "hate speech law vs unlimited free speech" problem. It's a problem of using "hate speech" as a lever (or hammer) against individuals or groups who have offended others, or expressed unacceptable political opinions. Being offended by speech is not the same as being injured by speech. There should be little to no protection against being offended.

The problem of unambiguously hateful speech (as opposed to offensive speech) is that it inflames other people and can lead to harmful, injurious behavior. Keep it up long enough and it will lead to harmful, injurious results.

So hate speech laws are appropriate for unambiguously hateful speech. It's ambiguously hateful, offensive, annoying speech where hate speech laws are inappropriate.

According to Google Ngram (a word/phrase frequency application) "hate speech" did not register as a phrase used in print until 1990. Its rise to prominence follows the classic "hockey stick" pattern -- slow at first, then straight up.

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like.

Thanks for the video. That San Cristobal is a high crime / dangerous neighborhood doesn't jump out at one. One would need to hang around the place at night, but there are signs that are problematic.

The housing looks like "public housing", as opposed to privately developed residences. Public housing in itself is a social good, but if it isn't managed carefully, it can turn into concrete jungles. For instance, it's critical to have a balance of adults and children in the buildings. Too many children and too few adults spells trouble. It's important to screen out problematic tenants. The buildings have to be maintained in good condition. Etc.

Chicago's public housing turned into a nightmare and the most of the buildings were torn town. New York City's public housing didn't. It stayed good. Why? Better management and a commitment to long-term maintenance.

San Cristobal has a lot of repetitive concrete/brick buildings located in close proximity. It isn't brick and concrete per se that are problematic. It's the way the buildings either support community or impede it -- or even destroy - it that matters. Again, New York is a crowded city. There are some very desirable and crowded neighborhoods made out of repetitive brick and concrete.

It is difficult to tackle all the problems that make up "high crime" neighborhoods. There just aren't enough social workers, enough jobs, enough public programs, enough therapists, enough of everything. Glad you are not living there -- you were just visiting, right?

Javi's "walk on the wild side"...

In 1625, Francis Bacon famously wrote, "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". In order to be a well rounded man, one needs to read, engage in conversation (speaking and listening) and in writing.

I would emphasize practice: One needs to write, receive criticism, and judge one's own work, again and again, If one doesn't read and converse, what would one have to say? Well, there is one's experience to write about, or one's imagination to spill out in ink, but that should be informed by reading and conversation.

Here's a poem I think is "classic" by John Donne, poet, scholar, soldier secretary and priest. It partakes of the routine misogamy and double-standard of his time (16/17th century), but what's true for a woman is/was even more true for a man.

Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
And find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me,
All strange wonders that befell thee,
And swear,
No where
Lives a woman true, and fair.

If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.

George Herbert's Love III is another classic from around 1630.

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.

A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

It's about God's love and I won't quote any more 17th century poetry for a while.

Did you ever read any of these? — javi2541997

Only the Odyssey and parts of the Iliad; Metamorphosis, Candide; several Dickens, Mark Twain, Henry James, Dr Zhivago by Pasternak. None of the rest; I've never liked Hemingway. I read Don Quixote, once upon a time.

There are too many great books for anyone to have read more than a small fraction. Life is short and there is only so much time to delve into more than a few. And that doesn't include very significant books which would not be a wonderful read--like Chaucer's Treatise on the Astrolabe.

I'd consider Dune a classic; I've reread it several times, and of course the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Most science fiction doesn't rate "classic" to me because normally I do not reread them, unless I had forgotten that I had read it before. Sort of like movies you don't remember you have already seen until... half way through.

What about individual poems -- can they be classics along side novels? I think so. John Donne (15th/16th century) wrote wrote a number of poems like that. So did Shakespeare; so did a lot of poets.

Then there are musical classics -- from far past up to yesterday. A lot of music falls well short of "classic" in the sense that nobody has been interested in it for maybe 500 years or since it fell off the current hit charts.

I liked the essay; for one thing, it provided another word for my list of words rarely used in English -- pulviscular, "dusty or resembling a fine powder". Google's AI referenced a Calvino essay.

Might "a classic" just be called "a great book"?

Each of his several definitions of "classic" will satisfy some people, leave other people indifferent or annoyed.

#5. "A classic is a book which even when we read it for the first time gives the sense of rereading something we have read before."

I like that. Several excellent history books I've read or am reading, from "The British are Coming" to Stephen Greenblatt's "Dark Renaissance: The Dangerous Times and Fatal Genius of Shakespeare's Greatest Rival" (just published 9/9/25) fulfill definition #5. They summon memories from college reading and lectures not thought about for decades; they tie together bits and pieces of readings about the topic; they extend insights, etc. Greenblatt's grim description of 16th Century English society (burnings, hangings, disembowelments, poverty, filth, the rigid exclusion of the many from any prospect of advancement (which is why Chistopher Marlowe, son of a poor shoemaker, is so exceptional), are stuff I haven't thought about since English major days in the 1960s.

A classic reinvigorates one's thinking on a topic. So, The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777 by Rick Atkinson has reinvigorated my thinking about what the American Revolution was really like -- how grotesque at times, how bloody, how savage, how dicey, how good luck or bad luck figured into so many events. I also have a better understanding of why the British didn't want to lose the colonies -- they were terrific money makers for Britain's ruling class.

I would nominate 15th century Chaucer's Canterbury Tales as a Classic I have re-read and enjoy studying, and Samuel Pepys diary 17th century diary. Both are fun reads worth returning to. I'd count John Skelton's 16th century work too -- like the Tunning of Eleanor Rumming. Not a pretty lady she.

Her lothely lere
Is nothynge clere,
But ugly of chere,
Droupy and drowsy,
Scurvy and lowsy;
Her face all bowsy,
Comely crynkled,
Woundersly wrynkled,
Lyke a rost pygges eare,
Brystled wyth here.

Wondrously wrinkled like a roasted pig's ear, bristled with hair! Maybe not Milton, but I haven't read Milton in a long time. Classic? Sure.

True. The "now" of a basketball game or tennis match is very short. The now of a marathon, not so short. Broadcast baseball games seem to have an interminable now -- God! When is this thing going to be over!!! Cricket I suppose has as speedy a now as molasses in January.

"living in the here and now" sounds like just one more cliche from authors making money in the self-help trade. Not that I have anything against "being in the present moment". What exactly is so great about being in the here and now of scrubbing the bathroom? Or of balancing one's checkbook? Or of having a bad headache? Etc. Quite often (in the real world) the here and now sucks!

I spent an evening with Richard Alpert, aka Ram Dass, at St. Catherine's College quite a few years ago @Wayfarer. It was lovely. Listening to something wonderful by Schubert, or biking in Wisconsin in perfect fall weather; or reading a really great book about how the continent of North America was put together have all been splendid. When one is doing something very enjoyable and worthwhile, one wants to "pay attention" or be present in that experience.

As far as the past goes, William Faulkner was right: "The past is never dead. It's not even past". (I haven't read the book where he wrote that. That's OK. It's still true.) That said, perseverating over past events doesn't help the present or the future. "Don't worry about the future" has always struck me as bad advice. True, the troubles of today are sufficient unto themselves, per Jesus, but there is no point in making tomorrow worse by what we are doing in the present moment--per Bitter Crank. So do worry about tomorrow at least a little, please.

NOW is always a juggling act with the past and future. How big is it? The "now" of my brain is a few minutes long, maybe. The "now" of geology lasts for centuries. The "now" of history is slow and spacious, until it suddenly switches to dizzying speeds. The "now" of a pop song on a 45 rpm record used to be about 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

Jack, I spent many years in the unpleasant present you seem to be occupying. Like you are doing, one endures; one questions why; one wishes life would be better. And periodically life does get better, at least for a time. Unfortunately, and it really is unfortunate, life just isn't organized around our being happy.

Yeah, and can you force people to behave? Without violent indoctrination? Without capital punishment and constant fear of death? No, you cannot. — Outlander

A depressing--and not at all realistic--response.

A "conscientious cooperative civil society" isn't forced -- it is reared from childhood. You have to teach children -- who become adults -- how to behave.

Does this result in perfect compliance with the law under any and all circumstances? Does this absolutely prevent violence under any and all circumstances? No. What it does is result in a LOW level of unlawful and violent behavior.

Do such societies exist? Certainly they do. Most of us live within such societies.

Many of us also live within societies which are fraying, owing to excesses of free enterprise in such businesses as gun manufacture, gambling, illicit drug use, and the like.

I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." — RogueAI

You didn't say that, of course; Kirk did. And it's specious. Having a gun never protected "God-given rights", other than the holy sanctity of private property--and then only maybe. What best protects civil rights is a conscientious cooperative civil society.

But I wonder whether Kirk had any limits to this sort of justification. In 2023 44,000 people died of gunshots. That's quite a few. Year after year, 40,000 here, 38,000 there, it begins to add up to to a sizable city.

We get used to the statistics of excess deaths -- those above and beyond what are the result of natural causes, like heart attacks, cancer, and strokes.

Americans feel they are entitled to do what they want to do, carry a loaded gun into church, drive the way they want to drive, take whatever drugs are on offer, and so on. 39,000 people died in auto accidents last year--quite a bit less than used to be slaughtered on th highways. In 2023, 80,391 people died of drug overdoses -- down from 110,000 in 2023. Are these acceptable numbers to justify "freedom of the gun", "freedom of the road", "freedom of the drug"? Taken together, guns, cars, and drugs killed roughly 160,000 people last year. I consider that a monstrous cost for a policy of non-interference in lethal activities.

This thread reminds me just how little I know the lot of you. — Outlander

Of course! The lot of us actually disclose very little pertinent information about our drab wretched lives. Some people here seem to feel they might be giving away private information if they acknowledge which continent they live on.

Charlie Kirk is a complete unknown to me. Every day anonymous strangers are killed whom I cannot mourn.

As for The Malcolm X issue of ballots vs. bullets, I am strongly in favor of 'the people' organizing themselves to engage in effective politics for the best interests of the country. "Best interests" will be contested, of course. What's in the best interests for small farmers might not be what is in the interests of urban dwellers. It seems quite clear that the legal framework in which gun manufacturers operate (very weak product liability, for example) is not in the best interest of anyone except gun manufacturers. (Gun manufacturers contribute much less to GDP than pet food manufacturers. The economy can flourish without gun makers!)

The 2nd Amendment / gun fetishists have grossly distorted what the constitution claims, and have in the process created a major menace. Sure, someone's decision to shoot up a school or kill some notable person may be highly irrational, but the more significant fact is that an irrational person someone contemplating mayhem will have no difficulty finding a well-stocked gun shop.

So, no sympathy from me for 2nd amendment victims of gun violence.

Perhaps we will reach a sufficient level of national disunity that we will be faced with a civil war. When and if that day arrives, we can get a gun, join a local militia, and blast away at the designated enemy. But we are not at that day now, and we do not seem to be on the verge of that day.

Vigorous, focused, competent political activism is still a better bet for a civil society, good government, honest business, and a free citizenry.

No advice from me on where you should go. Given the thread, I will note that if one did not exist, housing choices would be much simpler. I can only hope that everyone who didn't get born is not living in a poorly managed city of the non-existent where there are neighborhoods of nobodies ranging from elite ocean-side gated neighborhoods to third-world shit holes.

Most cities have bad areas, and they shift over time, so what might have been a nice neighborhood is now gangland. In Minneapolis, the area where a lot of shootings, drug dealing, drug doing, street crime, thieving, etc. etc. is creeping closer to my neighborhood which has seen low rates of crime for a long time. "Uptown" used to be a slick shopping and sort of bohemian housing area, next to the high end housing surrounding the string of large lakes. The up-scale housing zones are doing fine, but Uptown has hit the skids, partly a victim of urban renewal projects which can be extremely disruptive. The bookstores and coffee shops are gone, along with the vintage movie theater, several nice restaurants, and so on.

Unfortunately, neighborhoods that are bohemian, charming, cheap, and colorful have a higher chance of sinking into a slum because it is cheaper and probably socially more tolerant than areas which have much more to lose financially.

I don't know where I would move if (when) my present neighborhood becomes unsafe. Given my age (79), I'd have to look for affordable senior housing.

I suppose there are ways to survey possibly renting in other parts of London without having to traipse through 100 miles of hallways, subway rides, and streets looking at different places? Websites? Free rental agencies? City agencies?

Moving is tough. It's hard work, it's stressful, it's risky (always a gamble on the next landlord, next neighborhood, etc.) and it can be expensive. On the other hand, living in a neighborhood becoming a high crime area is not great either.

my individual ipseity — Moliere

I was doing so well without having heard of "ipseity". Now? The future is uncertain. A new word can cause the world to veer off in unexpected directions!

Perhaps you should live someplace else? Of course, I know that circumstances may preclude just casually moving from a neighborhood with gangs to a nicer, safer neighborhood. But do what you can. We don't want to lose you to a knife-wielding thug. (In the USA they just shoot you, which is usually more lethal.).

I've lived in some seedy, dicey neighborhoods and did get threatened at knifepoint on a couple of occasion, and barely missed worse. Other than moving, can you make a change in when and where you go? Are you more at risk later at night, and can that be avoided? Can you take any self-defense moves -- mace, a whistle (I don't know what the efficacy of whistles actually is), a gun? Oh sorry, you live in the UK. Might you attend a self-defense course?

All that information is overwhelming — Athena

Sure. There is only so much one can take in and process, young or old. The good news about mentioning other depressions, aside from the great one, is that people endured the suffering and moved on--again and again.

My father's ancestors were farmers. One of the features of farming in the late 19th into the 20th century is how often farmers moved -- not for better views, but because farms failed financially fairly often. Good land but bad economies. My mother's family were not farmers, but they too experienced financial reversals. My grandfathers loss of his drugstore in the Great Depression had enduring psychological effects; my mother inherited a major share of the disappointment. My remarkably resilient. father didn't.

On your state of residence...

I've never been to Oregon. I spent a week at Holden Village -- a Lutheran camp in Washington's mountains a few years ago -- spectacular. Otherwise for the west coast, I've only been to San Francisco and surrounding territory. Oregon, and the other two west coast states, seemed to have had a history of bloodier labor strife than many places in the US (excepting Detroit, Chicago, the Appalachian coal states...).

@Athena: Oh, I just noticed from your profile that you live in Oregon. For some reason I thought you were Canadian. I pictured you living somewhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

Nobody ever said I wasn't a day late and a dollar short when it comes to social interaction.

If we are going to psycoanalyze the country's mental health with respect to the Great Depression, which I enjoy doing as much as the next armchair psychiatrist, we should spread our net wider -- knowing that the consequences of mental distress (it's several causes) can be inter-generational. We elderly folk, with elderly parents, and elderly grandparents and great-grandparents are not generationally far-distant from the "Long Depression" (1873-1879), the Panic of 1893, -- never mind the the Great Depression (1929-1933), the recession of 1937-1938, and the Great Recession (2007-2009). Thank you AI for that summary. I'll add the long decline in purchasing power and wages for the working class that began in the early 1970s and continues. These periods are characterized by significant declines in economic output and increases in unemployment, varying in duration and severity.

Then there were wars -- Civil War, Spanish American War. WWI, and so on. There have been huge immigration waves which were unsettling to "native" populations - and settled previous immigrants alike. There were periods of rapid technological change, far exceeding the disruption of computers and smart phones -- think about the telephone, electrification, radio, subways, automobiles, airplanes, motion and sound film, atom bombs and television--all happening in about 60 years. Don't forget about the impact of germ theory and the discovery of viruses. Did I mention Darwin and new biblical criticism that undermined the older interpretations of the Bible?

The late 19th century and 20th century were very rocky times for anyone that preferred stability and predictability.

Go back to the "pioneer days" of western settlement in the US, let's say after the War of 1812, or thereabouts. Lots of opportunity for enterprising pioneers and settlers--but man, a lot of that pioneering was hell on wheels. Ole Edvart Rølvaag's Giants in the Earth depicts the experiences of a Norwegian pioneer couple in the Dakotas:

Giants in the Earth by O.E. Rølvaag tells the story of Norwegian immigrants Per Hansa and his wife Beret as they attempt to establish a new life on the harsh Dakota prairie in the 1870s. Per embraces the land's potential and the challenges of frontier life, but Beret becomes increasingly consumed by loneliness and a deep-seated fear of the vast landscape, which she perceives as a hostile, desolate place haunted by spiritual entities. The novel explores the profound psychological and cultural struggles of immigrant homesteaders, detailing their conflicts with nature—like crippling winters and devastating grasshopper plagues—and the internal battles between preserving their Norwegian heritage and adapting to a new world. The story ultimately chronicles the hardships, isolation, and eventual tragedy that befall the settlement, highlighting the human cost of the pioneering experience. — AI SUMMARY

AI's summary is pretty much what I remember from high school.

So, adding it all up one can conclude that "a good share of the time, life is a bitch and then you die". Not to be overly pessimistic, but "upheaval" has been more the norm than settled stability for a long time. That's the challenge people overcome again and again.

America was lucky (not ordained by any means) to be the recipients of a liberal tradition developed in Europe, a super abundance of land and resources, plentiful population to work the land and add to the human capital, and a few brutal policies which made it all possible.

So here we are, more or less thriving -- just like numerous other countries that have been through the grinder of war, disaster, depression, disease, and so on. Oh, just for example, Vietnam, a small country which received as much bombing as much larger territories in earlier wars. They are flourishing, but I am sure they are also affiliated by shadows from the past.

People over come.

To have a just correction system, we need knowledge of our nature and the importance of liberal education. Understanding human nature does not come from the Bible, despite what Christians believe. — Athena

I'll say AMEN to that.

I have been reading a history of Amsterdam, a place that invented and applied the term "liberal" back in the 16th century, and which has had a continuing influence on the city. Their liberal ideals were to become a significant element in western culture.

I was a lonely, afraid and stupid kid — Nils Loc

I was certainly stupid, afraid, and lonely, and that spells trouble ahead, but people frequently survive the process of becoming less stupid. Lonely--that is harder. Afraid? Depends on the circumstances. I have to confess that stupidity lasted way beyond childhood in my case. It was the kind of stupidity that college can't cure. Some of it never did go away.

I definitely will not buy a ticket to the lottery of being born again and living another life. "It's a once around life!" according to Schlitz, the beer that made Milwaukee famous. My life wasn't all that bad this time, on balance, but the probabilities for bad, very bad, and very very bad are pretty high.

When I thought about the thread question I didn't think about the way it relates to medical ethics and the question of 'unborn child'. — Jack Cummins

Properly so, and I hope it isn't picked up on by anyone in this thread. The existential import of a decision whether to bear children or not is altogether different than considering that one's self had not existed.

It could make no difference to me, whatsoever, since, if I had not existed, I wouldn't be present to have an opinion.

Having not existed might make some difference to others that did/do exist. I accomplished some minor achievements which, if I had not existed, would not have been done. Somebody else could have, might have, or not. If NOT, then the world would lack those minor achievements, and that might matter to a few hundred people in a probably small way.

It would certainly have mattered to my parents, who would have had one less child to raise. They had to work very hard to feed, clothe, and house 7 children. It would probably have made a difference to my siblings. I was the youngest. Without me, the sister who preceded me would have been the youngest child, and might have received some advantages from that.

My boy friends and lovers would not have had the pleasure of knowing, loving, being proud of or disappointed in me, and they would not have received my love for them. Of course, there are plenty good fish in the sea, and any of them might have made better matches.

I think I have gained knowledge, understanding, maybe 'wisdom' over just about 79 years. Does the knowledge I accumulated count as a "good", an "asset" to the society at large? Don't know. The time may yet come when I will be able to explain some historical facts, for instance, to one or more people who don't have much knowledge about history. Or perhaps I will just be a knowledgeable corpse one day. That's OK. I studied because I liked study.

We know for a fact that through various technologies of birth control, millions of babies have not been conceived and delivered. Missing babies is a significant thing. Ask Japan, which has a growing deficit of children to replace the generation who might have borne them. You can also ask China, Germany, Italy, Korea, and a number of other places about the coming demographic problem of too few children.

Let's not blame birth control, however. A lot of people apparently wish never to change a stinky diaper.

I am not sure whether the existing liberal center should be likened too an avocado (no), a peach (maybe), or several little apple seeds (I hope we're better than that). A really big solid avocado core would be nice. A peach pit might be all we can get in the near future. Or, maybe we are stuck with little apple seeds?

We need more energetic and articulate people like Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders may consider himself a Democratic Socialist, but he is also energetic and articulate (but aging). I don't want to see Harris or a Clinton or the like taking the lead.

I have a history of further-to-the-left-than-Democratic-Socialist, and I know from experience that it is very difficult to arrest the attention of the ordinary man in the street, let alone build their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment into action (like voting). "Liberal democracy" should be a significantly easier sell than socialism. After all, liberal democracy, free enterprise, and all that are not asking anyone to lay their life on the line, give up their career, sell their property, or forgo a new iPhone. Nobody is even asking gun owners to repent and turn in their guns.

I mean, the core values of liberal democracy are not strange:

The core values of liberalism are individualism, liberty, equality, and the rule of law, emphasizing the rights of the individual and the consent of the governed. Other essential principles include private property, freedom of speech and religion, and a representative democracy supported by a mixed or market economy. I would add "the truth of science", given Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy, Jr. shitting on the truth of medical science and the administration's denial of climate warming.

Einstein also said the Fourth World War would be fought with rocks, there being nothing else left to fight with after the Third World War.

2) My claim is this should not be interpreted as backsliding but rather as an overestimation of the percentage of the world population who embraced liberalism to begin with. — Joshs

I don't know much about the over-estimation of the world's liberalism, but that is certainly the case for the United States.

It might seem like liberals had super-majorities in congress during the Roosevelt administrations, and in some other decades, but only if one mistakenly equates "Democrat" with "Liberal". Democratic majorities were possible because the illiberal solid-south Democrats had pretty much complete control over southern state politics. It became more difficult for Democrats to control congress after the illiberal Democrats switched and became illiberal Republicans. That's one thing.

States in the midwest and west coast have always held strong conservative constituencies along side liberal districts (usually urban). Minnesota illustrates this well, sending a mixed conservative and liberal representation to Congress. Minnesota was a consistently religious place, with strong "family values". It less religious now, less traditionally family oriented, but still has about the same mix of conservative and liberal. California, the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan et al, has had some remarkably illiberal episodes.

If you take a random sample of Americans, I would expect the majority to express a mix of values which can't be taken as resoundingly Liberal. That doesn't mean that the majority are on the edge of fascism, but far right leanings make up substantial group (the "MAGA base").

Pundits are saying the Democrats don't know what to do to win elections. I don't think that is true -- they know how as well as the Republicans. The problem with the presumably liberal Democrats is that their liberalism isn't deep or strong enough to motivate them, to the same extent that the far right Republicans are motivated. They seem to be having difficulty clearly articulating the liberal cause.

The failure to articulate and hold the liberal center allows for growing encroachment on the political center by far right wing thinking and 'left of liberal' thinking on the left side. MAGA and some of the so-called Democratic Socialists both pose problems for central liberalism, whether rounding up 10 million illegal immigrants or abolishing the police.

It will eventually, but probably not in our lifetime. — frank

I'm not confident that I will be dead before things spiral out of control, and I'm an old man.

Of course you didn't invent it. I'm familiar with the principle even if I don't like the application.

For me personally, it was a big disappointment — Astorre

You can imagine, then, how much bigger a disappointment it is for Americans who didn't vote for Trump and altogether disapprove of him and his policies.

Trump did not win the popular vote by a wide margin; it was Trump 49.8% and Harris 48.3%. The large margin was in the electoral college, which I don't want to discuss here.

The Senate and the House are both controlled by Republican majorities--not huge margins, but still a majority. This might change in the 2026 election, or maybe not. We'll see. Trump had the unfortunate opportunity to name 3 justices to the Supreme Court, tipping the balance strongly toward the conservative judicial view. With both legislative houses, the court, and the presidency all controlled by the same party, the republicans can expect to have many policy wins.

The BIG thing about Trump is that he is willing to flout legal precedent and ignore laws (and the constitution) which place limitations on his some of his overt policies and actions, and his party approves -- so far, anyway. From what source would powerful opposition come? Not from the House; not from the Senate; not from the Court. "We the people" won't have a chance to vote for House members and 1/3 of the Senate for 14 more months, and if an overwhelming majority of liberals were elected, they still wouldn't take office until 16 months (roughly) from now. That gives Trump a long time to continue on his rampage, and possibly abort an election where he would lose power.

We are in uncharted territory with a president who doesn't care what the court rules. The courts do not have an army to force him to do anything. The uncomfortable fact is this: You can't do business unless people are honest, and you can't have an effective law-abiding government if people (particularly in government) don't care about the law, facts, and reality.

An American has to be something of a rebel, a dissident, to perceive how propaganda and soft power operate on the home front -- never mind in countries where we don't travel a lot. Most Americans are not dissidents, not given to reading Marx or other socialists (real socialists, not the Democratic Socialists). Certainly the recipients of propaganda, soft power, and sometimes hard power have no difficulty seeing American foreign policy at work.

A previous administration used to conduct "secret wars". The New York Times reported on these "secret wars". Noam Chomsky, in blasting the NYT, asked "To whom are these wars secret? Certainly not the people who are being bombed! It's Americans from whom the wars are kept secret."

I'm a gay man, but I can understand how the western 'gay movement' does not translate well to some other societies. Health workers in Uganda, for instance, don't think that they need to worry about gay transmission of HIV because "there are no homosexuals in Uganda" -- or that was the view 25 years ago. Uganda is apparently virulently homophobic at this time--not a good time to start a gay liberation movement. I'm not sure which countries are open to some of the esoteric gender issues which we have been dealing with. "Gay liberation" can only happen in societies that are ready and willing.

That is your pov.

Western foreign policy is increasingly criticized as hypocritical — Astorre

Hypocrisy is a universal trait (even if it is undesirable) among all humans and all human institutions. It's just easier to see in other people, other nations.

The U.S. dollar was seen as unshakable. Western democracy was often cited as the highest political ideal. Western consumer goods were considered objectively superior. And the broader cultural narrative—academic, technological, even moral—was clearly West-centric. — Astorre

a) Is an 'unshakable dollar' a measure of the western ideal?
b) Why wouldn't 'western democracy' remain the highest IDEAL, even if, in reality, it is less than ideal?
c) Are objectively superior consumer goods, nice as they are, a measure of western ideals?
d) The 'broader cultural narrative' isn't accepted by all western academics.

Many Americans (liberals in the best meaning of liberal) find unsatisfactory a good deal of what is going on in the US, the west in general, and the east in general. So, it's not surprising that people elsewhere -- seeing anti-liberal trends in US political behavior -- would have doubts. However, IF liberal values were good 10 or 15 years ago, they ought to still be good.

Are we truly entering an era of multipolarity? If so, what are the philosophical consequences of a world without a dominant cultural “center”? — Astorre

Within the last 125 years, various regimes have arisen whose focus was decidedly unliberal and unwestern. One of them, the PRC, remains. It's been a going concern since October 1, 1949. It has not been without some really major difficulties (famine, cultural revolutions, glorious rich-getting, etc.) There is a large batch of smaller illiberal and/or un-western regimes which have come to the fore locally. Just to name a few, Saudi Arabia; Iran; Spain; South Africa; Serbia; Cuba; Argentina; Chile; and quite a few others. Some of these regimes, like Fascist Spain, have reformed. Argentina and Chile eventually got rid of their generals.

The US has had better and worse period of western democratic performance, and is currently in one of its worst-performing periods, with Trump at the helm. The big question for me is how long this dispiriting episode will last.