I mean learning the secrets of stars and clouds and oceans; learning the language of whales and cicadas; rediscovering the magic of knowledge that civilization had shut down for so long. — Vera Mont

Learning the secrets of stars, whales and cicadas involves a tremendous amount of tedious work -- work considered tedious by the people who love doing it. The exciting moments are thinly scattered.

Now wait a minute... one of the benefits of civilization has been the rich discoveries of science, boring details and brilliant discoveries alike. What "magic of knowledge" did civilization shut down for so long???

"Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics." The most famous quote of a Frenchman who who died in the first Battle of the Marne.

The term is used in anthropology, ethnology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. No doubt it’s used loosely sometimes in those disciplines. I guess you’ve been unlucky and have somehow, in all of your reading, managed to miss the more rigorous use of the term. — Jamal

Quite possibly. I haven't read much in anthropology, and have not found a lot of magic in sociology, psychology, and philosophy--literally and figuratively.

BTW, one example of "magic" might be the placebo effect. The fake pill can not have a beneficial effect, yet the patient improves. Conversely, the "nocebo" effect also works, where delivering a very bad prognosis seems to speed up the progress of the disease. Low expectations tend to produce low performance. This "magic" is possible because the knowing brain (that thought it was taking a real pill) is also in charge of the details of the body's operation. Ditto for the "nocebo".

Look. I understand that magic is "really real" for many people. A lot of people believe in witch doctors and their magic, for instance. Atheists may think that nothing fails like prayer, but a lot of believers would vehemently disagree. At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, some gay men resorted to magical cures (crystals, for instance) because there was, literally, nothing else. Part of the "magic" was the real camaraderie of the afflicted, but one doesn't need magic to understand that. When effective medication came along, the crystals were dumped. Many cultures have employed magic to control nature. While granting that magical acts may be truly comforting, when it comes to control of nature, magic has no efficacy. Dancing does not make it rain, but it is a meaningful activity.

I'd add something like a mode of behaviour to "a way of thinking". It's real, as real as religion, although like religion, it might not always work, or work in the way people think.

I admit I’ve used the concept loosely. — Jamal

Yes, but "magic" is a loosey goosey term, once it's taken out o the theater and pressed into service at the Academy. A lot of what we say about religion is also loosey goosey—not because we are sloppy thinkers. (I mean, we might be sloppy thinkers, but there is an awful lot of slop in the topic to start with,).

As somebody said, "Religion is magic you believe in; magic is religion you don't believe in."

I would now reveal all to you, but it's time for my Tuesday lunch date; if I remember, I'll disabuse you of your enchantment later.

I guess I don't find "magic" and "enchantment" very helpful concepts. Some people do, of course.

an interesting aside: Ursula LeGuin's phantasy worlds remain 'magical' all the way to the last page. The practitioners of powerful magic spells remain. Tolkien, on the other hand brought magic to an end in Middle Earth. The practitioners of magic were either destroyed (Sauron) or their powers were exhausted–Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, et al). Men without magic would rule the 4th Age.

It's been a long time since I read Harvey Cox's Secular City which is about Christianity in a secularizing/secularized world. I've wrestled with thais issue since the late 1960s. Perhaps that's why I'm leery about magic and enchantment.

In one way we do have magic a plenty -- it is the performed prestidigitation of advertising and public relations--much (most?) of it is trickery and falsity. The magician's skill isn't in harnessing occult power, of course; it is in misdirecting our gaze and attention so that we miss the critical step. In retail mall architecture, the "Gruen Transfer" is intentional disorientation of the mall customer. (Might be a dated concept; are people still dazzled when they walk into a retail mall? I kind of doubt it. But still, successful retail is highly distracting -- the better for you to buy something you didn't really want or need.

Advertising is predicated on deficiencies -- ours -- that products offer to emend. You can have the sexier smile, the sex-getting sexy figure, the status-giving car, the love-inducing diamond, etc. If it doesn't work, well... there are other products to sell you. Advertising is not magic -- it's just ordinary lying and deceit, most of the time.

A rich topic!

"incommensurable value-fragmentation into a plurality of alternative metanarratives" — Jamal

That phrase alone is going to require a fair amount of unpacking.

are people today enchanted by magic spells? — Jamal

From a secular POV (which everyone, of course, doesn't share) we never were enchanted by magic spells so we can't be disenchanted now. There never was any such thing as 'magic' if by 'magic' we mean 'effective control over the material world'.

* Conspiracy theories
* Demagoguery, nationalism, the alt-right
* Science (as scientism)
* New Age spirituality: "I'm spiritual but not religious"
* Progress/Decline/Catastrophe
* Consumerism

Your list is infused with incommensurable value-fragmentation and plurality of alternative metanarratives, so to speak.

Conspiracy theory–a shared narrative which unites an 'out group' around a supposed falsehood–is entirely separate from science. I'm not sure what anyone means by 'scientism'. Demagoguery*** is in disfavor, and isn't equivalent to nationalism and populism, which are currently in ill repute in some circles. New Age spirituality is one of my pet peeves, so no quarrel there. "Progress / Decline / Catastrophe" Consumerism ..... All four terms have meaning, of course, but what did you mean?

such generic bores as our captains of industry — Nietzsche, The Gay Science

Great phrase, like Mark Zuckerberg for instance.

Max Weber described modernity as a world ‘robbed of gods’. ‘The fate of our times’, he wrote, ‘is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the “disenchantment of the world” ’. This, he suggested, ‘means that one can, in principle, master all things by calculation … One need no longer have recourse to magical means in order to master or implore the spirits, as did the savage, for whom such mysterious powers existed. Technical means and calculations perform that service.’

However...

if a process of disenchantment was under way during the twentieth century, it was hugely uneven. As Wolfgang Behringer has recently observed, it is probable that a majority of the world's population today believes in witchcraft, which would mean, in absolute terms, that there are vastly more believers than there were in 1600. Oxford Academic

***demagoguery "political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument." How disfavored I suppose depends on the desires and prejudices of 'ordinary people'.

Is "Progress: an insufferable enthusiasm"?

Interesting topic and already 6 pages of discussion, which I haven't read. So...

how have the "primitive conditions" he lists, namely "war, scarcity, disease, ignorance, and lethal menace," actually been alleviated or overcome by "Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress"? — Jamal

Primitive conditions have been eliminated here and there, for a time, for some people. If one happens to be at the right place, time and people, then the culture will seem to have progressed. Unfortunately, in lots of places, much of the time, and for many people not too much abatement of the primitive has occurred.

Why not?

he truth is that nothing can absolve humanity of its crimes and nothing can make up for the suffering of the past, ever. Nothing and nobody will redeem humanity. Nothing will make it okay, and we will never be morally cleansed. We certainly ought to strive for a good, free society, but it will never have been worth it. — Jamal

You seem to be suggesting that "primitive conditions" are the result of crimes of commission, sinfulness, evil, etc. Of course, one can finger times, places, and people where crime sin, evil, etc. has been regnant. World wars, genocides, great leaps forward, many forms of organized oppression.

One could attribute all of our suffering to the venality, greed, selfishness, shortsightedness, pig headedness, corruptibility, invincible stupidity, feral viciousness, and MORE of humans. All that is true, I think, and we can do no other in the long run.

We are the species we are. As far back as we can see. Global warming may in time (but not far distant) return us all to a quite primitive state, complete with much suffering. Are we to blame?

Global warming is the result of our discovery that hydrocarbons were a really terrific energy source which beat out the alternatives. We have never been the sort of species that would discover hydrocarbons and then pause for a few decades to consider carefully what the consequences might be of using coal, oil, and natural gas like water.

The coal and oil were there for the taking! Burn, baby, burn, Drill, baby, drill. Even though we now know what we are doing to our only home, most of us who use a lot of hydrocarbons are very unenthusiastic about changing our way of life very much. We are just not that kind of species.

I hear you. I doubt that much of this is held in place by a deep reading of politics or scripture. It seems more emotional, a form of tribalism which has become embedded in cultural identity in some parts of the US. — Tom Storm

It absolutely is NOT held in place by any sort of deep reading of politics, scripture, or anything else, save some sort of dark, nihilistic claptrap.

Tribalism strikes me as an accurate term. Some parts of the US have been more violent than others since the beginning. I like to contrast the New England Puritans to the Southerners. The Puritans, arriving from Eastern and SE England who became "Yankees", believed in the efficacy of the state as the means to achieve a better society. The southerners, deriving from the Cavaliers and Scots/Irish fringes, were implacable individualists. The Yankee culture was transplanted across the northern tier of states as far as the Upper Mississippi Valley (leaving an imprint on city names, speech styles, forms of government, and community involvement). The coastal southern planters spread across the south, taking with them speech styles, forms of government, and slavery of course. The southerns generally had difficulty cooperating as states (at least until the Civil War). The southern states were reluctant to cooperate in the construction of canals and railroads.

In more recent years, a sort of cowboy fascist gun, don't tread on me, anti-government, etc. culture has developed in various parts of the country--mostly rural areas. A lot of these yokels are anti-urban.

I can't succinctly trace out how this kind of fascist tribalism was hatched and disseminated, but if you were going to start looking under rocks, you'd want to start with conservative protestantism, parts of the south, parts of the Republican Party and conservative politics, parts of the military (places like Colorado Springs, Colorado), and so on. It didn't just happen by accident.

When one looks at gun violence, for instance, one sees substantially less of it in the northern Yankee influenced states than in the Cavalier/Scots-Irish influences states. The same goes, generally, for health, education, and welfare stats. The Yankee areas are healthier, better educated, and better off than other parts of the country.

I live in the Yankee state of Minnesota. Alabama is the bottom and we're the top (per Cole Porter, not sexual position).

D’oh! Not Taiwan invading Australia! China invading Taiwan! — Wayfarer

OK, I've tortured you long enough.

Tensions between the US and China with respect to Taiwan have been daily fare on the news here for some time. "Will they or won't they" invade? "Can they or can't they" defend themselves? The nuclear angle figures into it, but the nuclear angle with respect to Russia is more common.

Will we insert ourselves between China and Taiwan? Will China resort to nukes if we do? If we don't, how long can Taiwan hold out? And most importantly, what about Taiwan's chip factories? (That would be computer chips, not potato chips. Fortunately, the US is self-sufficient in the area of potato and corn chips.) High end computer chips are neither designed nor made in China -- most of that is done in Japan and Taiwan.

The fear is not China invading Australia, but Taiwan, which then turns into a global nuclear confrontation. Gun ownership won't have any bearing on that either. It'll be fought by remote control. — Wayfarer

Interesting concept -- Taiwan invading Australia, but why not? Will it be in the interests of the US to protect Oz from Taiwan with nukes? Don't know. Would you prefer PRC or Taiwan to be your invader and benevolent overlords?

If you are really very strongly against being invaded, then you might want to keep a gun handy to off yourself before the new management does it for you. .

Whether we like it or not, every society or country has been built with the use of violence and wars. — javi2541997

This is basically true. Just off hand, I can't think of any group that gave up their land willingly without a fight. There hasn't been any unoccupied territory on earth for the last 20,000 years, at least, so anybody who wanted to move their operations had to take land and resources away from somebody else. The taking of occupied land is generally a little more violent than a garden club plant swap. Somebody, maybe many somebodies, are going to end up dead, and the conquerors are not going to apologize.

When it comes to territorial acquisitions and mergers, humans just aren't very nice.

Didn't the Brits already invade Australia around 1788? Used it as a penal colony? Boomerangs didn't stop them, either.

On the other hand, China probably won't invade Australia with troops equipped with small arms. Against a shark what can a herring do? Sing out a Te Deum when when you see that ICBM and the party will be "come as you are".

Damned if I know why people believe in their guns more than they believe in Jesus.

But note, it's been 40+ years that the the NRA and conservatives have been grinding away on guns. And every mass shooting provides fresh justification for gun ownership to those already so inclined.

There is a devious activity going on; we just had an example of it in Northern Minnesota. This week the Itaska County Commissioners voted in favor of a non-binding resolution opposing any form of gun control. The resolution was sponsored by some conservatives, including the sheriff if I remember. This sort of resolution seems similar to attacks on libraries by conservatives. The primary object is less to get rid of a particular book like "Heather Has Two Mommies" but rather to find, collect, and animate their 'base'. As a side benefit they probably will get some of the books they don't like pulled.

I don't believe authors such as Paul Auster do a very good job of accounting for the level of violence present in the United States today by linking it to colonial era religious fanatics, slavery, and genocide. Those causes all had long-term and catastrophic consequences, so I am not discounting them. More recent developments also need to be considered.

One is the manufacture and sale of guns which has resulted in a glut of guns suitable for purposes ranging from squirrel hunting to near-warfare. Estimates vary, but there seem to be around 300 million guns in the US.

Two is the rhetoric surrounding guns. The NRA has not always been an organization promoting a rabid firearm fetish. The change to its present presentation occurred in the mid 1970s, when the NRA expanded its membership, quite purposively recruiting conservative voters.

The Second Amendment was for a long time a rather dull topic. Gun control and the 2nd Amendment, became a cause célèbre after 1977 when anti-gun-control NRA members took over the NRA at their annual convention in Cincinnati.

There have been periodic surges of violence in various countries, including the US. The late 1980s to mid 1990s saw such a surge in the US, then the rates declined -- and then in the past few years went back up. A quick and dirty summary would be rates peaked in 1972, 1992, and 2018 (give or take a year).

There are factors apparently accounting for some of the waxing and waning of violence. Various suggestions have been made. Here's a chart that reflects a possible contemporary influence:

Auster believes peace will not come to the US unless an honest conversation is had about the country’s violent and racist past. Right now, that doesn’t seem very likely though.

I am definitely in favor of Americans understanding the history of their country. I am not sure, though how this 'honest conversation' will change behavior.

This statement has been sent back to the Politburo for further consideration.

I suspect that people with a high level of personal confidence, self-efficacy, agency, and so on are less likely to seek social shelter in conservative groups. They are more likely to be comfortable with change and risk taking. Some people seem risk-averse early in life, and some are more likely to seek risk.

As difficult as it is to exceed 100% nut content, American politics is nuttier now. I don't know of any politicians in office who are working for open national borders either. It comes from individuals and groups focused on migrant issues.

Some socialists call for an abolition of national borders. I'm not in favor of that either, even as a card-carrying socialist. (Oh, maybe after the Revolution is complete all round the world, and workers have crushed the capitalists everywhere... maybe then. Please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.)

My opponents on the border issue are actually not conservatives, Republicans, or Trumpettes. Rather, they are my left liberal kin who are focused on the individuals and their hard-lot circumstances and feel we should admit them all because... we're a big, rich country and the would-be immigrants are from little poor countries, and they deserve a chance to succeed in America, etc.

I recognize the hard lot circumstances and aspirations of migrants and immigrants. Unfortunately, their aspirations can not set our national policy. IF we decide to officially let them all in and call for more, fine. Unfortunately for a lot of US-bound people, we haven't decided to do that.

Please bring your experiences into alignment with my inerrant suspicions.

I'm sure it's a common attitude among those on the liberal/socialist side, but it's a bit self-serving and it's disrespectful of those we disagree with. — T Clark

Of course! Every generalization about personality, politics, predispositions, etc. is going to be full of holes. I'm pretty risk tolerant, open to new experiences, at least left-liberal, etc. BUT contrarily I am opposed to open borders. I'm neither xenophobic nor neophobic. In my humble (probably inerrant) opinion, sovereign nations have the responsibility to their citizens to control their borders, both for trade and the movement of people. It may be that border control will amount to open borders, as it was during much of the 19th century for the US (at least for Europeans). Or not, depending on policy.

I approve of legal, authorized, planned immigration. Immigration is one of the reasons the US doesn't have the very problematic demographics which China, Korea, Japan, and much of Europe have, where the low birthrate spells serious economic trouble.

I think people may be born with a kind of nature that predisposes them to one way or the other — praxis

I think we are born with quite a few predispositions. It isn't that we are born "Republican" or "Socialist" of course. It's more about how we respond to risk, how we seek kinship with others, how we negotiate social roles.

EDIT: 3/6/23 10:19, CST The following paragraph is retracted.

I suspect that people with a high level of personal confidence, self-efficacy, agency, and so on are less likely to seek social shelter in conservative groups. They are more likely to be comfortable with change and risk taking. Some people seem risk-averse early in life, and some are more likely to seek risk.

This is something of an aside

Yesterday I watched a short Deutsche Welle documentary Are Humans Getting Dumber and Dumber?

During much of the 20th century, the "Flynn Effect" showed average IQ increasing a few points every decade across different populations. The increase seems to have stopped--again, across different populations. So, what's doing it?

Deutsche Welle didn't provide a definitive answer, but 2 suggested explanations seemed compelling.

a) We have off-loaded some cognitive tasks onto devices, tasks like navigating, calculation, remembering information, and so on. None of those are trivial tasks, and neglecting them may result in less mental agility. Map reading, remembering routes, doing arithmetic, remembering telephone numbers, etc. exercise vital mental abilities. Reading books and long articles helps us maintain focus over time. We're kind of screwed if we can't pay attention for more than 3 or 4 minutes at a time.

b) We are immersed in a wash of manufactured chemicals from agriculture and industry which may be having deleterious effects on our brains. Chemicals could have a direct effect (getting drunk kills off a batch of neurons), or it's a knock-on effect of various chemicals that resemble hormones that could affect brain function.

Individuals can't do much about chemicals, but they can change their use of gadgets and do more long reading.

My point is I see such matters differently than when I was young. — Athena

As well you should! The advantage of aging (provided one still has all of one's marbles) is that we gain perspective on what we learned and experienced when we were young, and added on up to the present. New learning and new experiences contribute to the sharpness of our perception.

Most older people become more conservative -- not necessarily in the political sense of the term. Aging bodies have to be more careful, lest they fall and break bones. Perception isn't quite as sharp. Our productive years are over, so we are operating on stored resources. We can't afford (figuratively and literally) to take big risks.

Because old people have been around for a few decades they have seen some bright ideas that did not pan out, while some tried and true methods did work (and visa versa). The result is more caution.

The term alcoholic isn't commonly used any more. — Tom Storm

Professionals in a field use less vernacular terms. "Alcoholic" is a one-size-fits-all term, and a "shopping addict" is quite different from the "meth addict" I would imagine.

I tend to find people may recover if they have meaningful alternatives to get involved in and can reimagine themselves as non-drinkers. — Tom Storm

I like that. It's positive.

I've known quite a few alcoholics, ones in recovery as well as men who were busy becoming alcoholic. AA has been helpful to some, but not all. It is at least not part of the commercial treatment industry, which Minnesota has a lot of. Too many of the programs have revolving doors. Clearly some of them are more successful as money makers than as behavior change agents. Maybe 1% of the chronic inebriates were "happy drunks". The rest were miserable.

A couple of phrases I like: "Therapy means change, not adjustment." "He not busy being born is busy dying" Bob Dylan (It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding)

...the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

One of my brothers died from drinking and smoking, and two of his three sons died of alcoholism and drug addiction. My brother was an school art teacher and performed his job adequately. His two sons had a much shorter addiction career. The whole family -- mother, father, and 3 sons, had significant MI issues (probably generational). One of the brothers was addicted to benzodiazepine and alcohol; the other was a heavy drinker and pot smoker. Oddly, the third brother managed to get his life together fairly early on and has led a healthier, happier life. He's in his 60s now.

If he does not want help, then he most likely will neither accept, receive, or benefit from it. He'll remain an alcoholic, and will probably die from alcoholism, directly or indirectly.

We could, of course, restrict refractory alcoholics' social freedom (some sort of institutionalization). There are harm reduction programs where alcoholics are cared for and can continue drinking. I like this approach. It recognizes the inability of some alcoholics to quit drinking without discarding them.

We don't know what to do for people who engage in activities that begin voluntarily, become addictions, then terminal conditions. Alcohol isn't the only addiction. There's also opiates and meth among others. Many people view addiction as an individual's moral failure, just as they view morbid obesity as a moral failure. Humans are prone to moral failure no matter what, so virtue is no protection.

rigour — Vera Mont

Are you Canadian?

the best thing would be to reason with him — NOS4A2

Reasoning with an alcoholic... hmmm. How well does that usually work?

What we collectively need to do is recognize alcoholism as a disease and not a moral failure. Diseases can be treated and/or managed. The success rate on treatment isn't great, so more emphasis on management and harm reduction,

During prohibition the supply chain was cut. The Feds were able to shut down brewing and distilling. There were then 4 sources of alcohol: a) Supplies stored before 1920 (wine cellars, liquor cabinets, and the like; things that wealthier people had). b) Do it yourself wine and beer brewing; this was more or less legal, but not altogether satisfactory, depending on skill c) smuggling. The "bootleggers" (some of whom were mafioso) were unable to bring in very large quantities. d) illegally distilled alcohol--often of very poor quality (if not poisonous).

Speakeasys were not on every corner, and bootlegged alcohol was expensive. A much larger percent of the population was rural in 1920, and rural people were more likely to abstain than urban people.

Yes, corruption was THE major consequence of of prohibition. (Interestingly, though, a positive side affect was a mixing of classes, races, and homosexuals in speakeasys that had not previously been possible. After prohibition there was a crackdown on the wide open socializing that had gone on.)

True enough -- the facts on alcohol consumption during prohibition were hazy. And no, the mafia didn't publish monthly sales figures. But there are enough reports to indicate that consumption did shrink. Not everyone was willing to break the law to get a drink. Illegal alcohol was expensive. Getting alcohol required some social intelligence and inconvenience.

Well, we PERHAPS learned our lesson as far as alcohol goes. Banning public smoking but keeping tobacco legal has worked.

Examining information carefully with an eye toward "the truth" is a time-consuming habit, and it can be difficult. There are good reasons why people bypass close examination.

One of the best, inevitably flawed ways we deal with the problem is by building a "system" through which information passes. If--over years' worth of time--we have done a good job, we can detect falsehoods reasonably well. Donald Trump's system (and those of his running dog lackeys) was perversely unable to hit the 2+2=4 level of fact checking.

For me, the potential consequences determine the degree of rigour I need to apply. — Vera Mont

Yes. I can live with the possibility that the can of organic tomatoes might not be all that organic, but I want my biopsy to be done very, very carefully. As for why somebody shot somebody else in a dark alley in Detroit ... well, I'll take the reporter's word for it.

This ad appeared on the page displaying stats on alcohol consumption. Right. What better time to advertise alcohol than when someone is wondering what the stats on drinking are. Nice ad, actually. Cool. I'll have some of that.

As of January, the state tax (where I live) was 3.46 cents per cigarette, or 69.2 cents per package of 20. The city / county (where I live) has an 8% sales tax on most purchases, and the federal government imposes a tax. A pack of Marlboros retails for about $10 or 9 euros. $3.5 of that price is tax.

Tax levels vary a lot by state. The District of Columbia (Washington) taxes $5 per pack; some southern states tax only pennies per pack.

In a quick search, I couldn't find much about tobacco tax revenue by state.

Does prohibition work? It does, to some extent. During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) alcohol consumption was reduced significantly. High taxes tend to reduce smoking, but what really worked was banning -- and enforcing -- smoking in public indoor spaces. No more smoking at work, in bars, restaurants, buses, meetings, etc. The percentage of adults who smoke has fallen roughly from 20% to 11%. In Minnesota the rate of adult smoking is 13%. That is good, but 13% means about 450,000 smokers.

A solid majority of Minnesotans (58%) drink. Of those, about 11% had 7 or more drinks on an occasion. (I would be unconscious if I had 7 drinks in an evening.) Minnesotans drink about 2.86 gallons of ethanol per year.

With respect to ethical dilemmas... If we all looked at ethics in the "big picture" view, many? Most of us? would be compromised to some extent. Most of us are tolerant of smoking, drinking, and at least some recreational drug use, even if we don't like it.

It's important to remember that people smoke and drink (and use other drugs) because the effects are pleasant -- at least in the short run. True enough, tobacco and alcohol producers and retailers push their products. But people have been using alcohol and various drugs for thousands of years -- again, because we like the effects that drugs can give us.

Tobacco is beyond question a very harmful substance, pleasant effects notwithstanding. Most people who use tobacco become addicted, and one of the pleasant effects that a cigarette delivers is the relief of the next dose of nicotine. Most people who use alcohol don't become addicted, but occasional drinking can still cause problems for people (making a fool of oneself is the least of it).

The problem with many products, not just tobacco and alcohol, is profits benefit from the drive to maximize consumption beyond what is good for people. "Yankee traders" (New England companies) made some huge fortunes selling opiates to the Chinese in the middle of the 19th century. Opiates were as much of a plague then as they are now. But hey... it was very profitable.

To tobacco, alcohol, weed, meth, cocaine, and opiates one can add sugar and fat -- pushed because it is profitable, even if these substances kill people.

[note: sugar and fat are essential; they are not drugs, they aren't addicting. But when they are cheaper than nutritious food, and ubiquitous, they become problematic.]

When presented with statements, I make a number of critical judgements:

Has the source of the statement previously been reliable?
Is the content of the statement consistent with the context?
Is the statement internally consistent (it doesn't contradict itself)?
Is the content of the statement supported by external information with which I am familiar?
Does the statement violate "common sense"?

What I describe is a 'background mental operation", not a deliberate forensic test for falsehoods. It doesn't necessarily result in "truth". The procedure protects me (to a fair degree) from outright false statements.

"Truth" can require a much more diligent, deliberate effort than merely detecting falsehoods, inconsistencies, irrelevant information, and so forth. Truth = a representation of the world as it actually exists.

Deciding whether "a representation of the world as it actually exists" may require lengthy reflection, a kind of fermentation. Arriving at a "TRUTH" can be disruptive, if old certainties collapse.

An example of a disruptive TRUTH might be the fresh conclusion that it was actually NATO and the European Union that had caused Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The actions of NATO and the EU threatened Russia's security. Instead of NATO and the EU wearing white hats and Ukraine being the victim, it is actually Russia that is the victim, and there is nothing virtuous about NATO, EU, or Ukraine.

I do not believe my example. However, some people believe that Russia is the aggrieved party and that the US and the EU are the aggressors. These people may be looking at the same information that I see. That people arrive at opposite conclusions is one of the problems of looking for THE TRUTH.

A representation of the world as it actually exists will include the contradictions which exist in the real world, but a contradictory truth makes us all unhappy. We want truth to be free of contradiction. Unfortunately.....

n my town? No, you won't. — Vera Mont

I'm glad I don't live in your town,

The OP scenario is a small town, wherein everyone knows that this person is trying to dry out. The store clerk is required to diagnose or pass judgment on anyone. — Vera Mont

I grew up in a very small town; the town owns the hard liquor store (but not the beer joints). Small towns are not necessarily the kinds of places where one can rely on the kindness of strangers--or people you know very well, for that matter. Leaving that little berg was a very happy day.

But the ethical problem isn't solved or simplified by living in a small town--it's just more personal.

Should you sell -- junk food to an obese person?
-------------------- cigarettes to someone with COPD?
-------------------- candy to a diabetic?

In real life, people make a lot of unhealthy choices while shopping. Clerks are not in a position to police the habits and addictions of the community or individuals.

The most solid theory that I know of is that the alcoholic has to decide to avail himself/herself of therapy or quit without help. A liquor store clerk's decision to refuse a sale is not likely to result in much of anything. The alcoholic an always find someone else to buy the liquor for him/her. At the state law level, bartenders can refuse alcohol sales to people who, in their judgement, are visibly drunk and impaired. That's not a necessarily obvious condition. "How drunk is drunk?" When does actionable impairment begin?

If the clerk is concerned, he or she could attempt to help the alcoholic obtain help (AA, detox, in- or out-patient treatment. Be warned, however, that it can require moving heaven and earth to get an addict to quit--especially If they don't want to. Even involuntary treatment is no guarantee of success.

Meaning might be use, but we have to agree on how use means what. That where grammar comes in. Otherwise use is useless in this monstrous meaningless mire in which we wallow. Speaking of which, Shawn hasn't been active for 19 days, I hope he's OK.

Meaningless to who — Philosophim

Meaningless to whom" because 'whom' is the object of the preposition. 'Who' is subjective. In the vast meaningless mess of the cosmos, grammar rules abide.

As for your post, it rates :100:

Because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. — niki wonoto

Quite possibly true, but we don't live in the grand scheme of things. We biological beings come and go pretty quickly. In the petite scheme of things, trivial matters tax our ingenuity. Mostly we matter to us, and we find our small-scale doings quite interesting.

Colliding galaxies, super novi, massive black holes, and the heat-death of the universe is "grand scheme" stuff.

Nothing wrong with political prejudices. I assume you're prejudiced against Stalinists? Fascists? Neonazi's? MAGA Republicans believe in some pretty sketchy stuff and I have found them all to be small-minded and cruel. — RogueAI

Stalinists? Check.
Fascists? Check.
Neonazis? Check.
MAGA Republicans? Check.
Neoconservatives? Check.
Neoliberals? Check.
Mafiosos? Check.
Drug cartels? Check.
Capitalists? Check.
Run of the mill crooks? Check.
Drug dealers? Check.
Drug users? Check.
Chronic Alcoholics? Check.
Southern Baptists? Check.
Book Banners? Check.
Illegal immigrants? Check.
Woke Activists? Double Check.
and more!

I am a prejudiced. I am biased, implicitly and explicitly. I love, I hate, I am coldly indifferent. I'm normal.

The 'concept' that there are people who hold no prejudices, who are free of bias, employ no stereotypes in their thinking, and approach every individual and group with an open mind is an absurd falsehood. Neither human societies nor human brains work that way.

I am not a terrible person, nor am I a bigot. What I am is cognizant that I am biased, prejudices, and I do not translate my biases into action. It is better to admit one's biases than deny them and regularly let them loose.

I don't fault Scott Adams for being biased and prejudiced. My assumption is that everyone -- even Baden -- is biased, prejudiced. I fault him for deciding to let his biases loose. (There was nothing spontaneous about his vlog entry.). People in a civil society are not obligated to be bias-free. They are obligated to maintain the membrane between their thoughts and their actions.

@NOS4A2 It doesn't work both ways because the underclass doesn't have many options. The overclass has all the goodies.

I think that I'm prejudiced against white trash neighbors, for example, and I can take action to change that bias. — praxis

In the real world, some people are trashy. Just personally, I don't think anybody is under any obligation to think, believe, or feel positively about them. In the real world, some problems are imposed upon people and some problems are brought on by the people themselves. One can distinguish between the two.

If you live next door to a house where irresponsible, disruptive, and highly annoying people live, why should you not have a negative bias against them?

On the other hand, if the people next door are responsible, cooperative, and polite but you are biased against them because they are lesbians, Hispanics, convicted felons, Asians, Moslems, Blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, or MAGA Republicans -- whatever they are -- then you should certainly adjust your outrageous sexual, ethnic, convict, religious and political prejudices and hatreds.

A belief isn't necessarily motivating. People are influenced by their biases, if that's what you're trying to say. — praxis

How do you parse out "belief" from "bias"? If I think that blacks are less intelligent than whites, is that a belief or a bias? (fact: I don't think that.). If I think that white trash make bad neighbors, is that a belief or a bias? (I kind of think so.).

How do you parse out what, exactly, is motivating?

Is the difference between being motivated by a belief or a bias a difference that matters?