It means it’s a sign from the universe to read something more interesting.

Added a poll. In reviewing some of my older posts, I think this is worth revisiting and I'd like to see -- if forced to choose -- what forum members think about power.

How would you see the differences? — Tom Storm

The rise of the corporation and technology, mostly.

The corporation is a legal fiction created by states, and has become the vehicle of plutocracy. Its “owners” are also major employers. It’s talked about as if it’s a person— which legally it is. A nice scenario for those who own lots of shares.

The start of the industrial revolution, where people went from mostly working in their homes, on their property, or in a small business to working in factories / mills was brought about by a change in technology.

Of course so do relationships between workers and owners - in feudalism, say. — Tom Storm

Not employer and employee, however.

How do we decide what matters? — TiredThinker

It's a matter of values and the prioritizing of those values. What do you care about? What do you like or love about life?

I think actions speak much louder than words (or thoughts...or professed beliefs), so looking at how we spend our time is, in my view, important. Not the time that we experience, per se, but the time we've standardized through the agreed upon duration of a "second" and a "day" -- so we can be a little more objective about it. How many non-sleeping hours are we spending on x, y, and z? That will tell you a lot about where your priorities are -- i.e., what "really matters" to you.

So we better try our best to align our time with our values. If we spend excess amount of time (A) alone, drifting, watching TV (or screens), overeating, being sedentary, or working a job we hate rather than (B) spending time with family and friends, or generally being sociable, or working in the community, or spending time getting healthier by being active and eating well, or doing creative, productive work voluntarily -- than we're likely in real trouble, because in this case B > A in terms of what matters, but A > B in terms of what we actually do.

To reverse a lot of this requires real reflection, an awareness that there's a problem, a desire to want to change, and the wherewithal to formulate a plan and stick with it. It means overcoming unhealthy habits of mind and body that we've developed, and which says something about our society as well.

Not an easy task. But an important question.

Good thread. It's a great question.

Like many things in political science, sociology, and economics, it's one of those words that is used a lot but is very rarely defined -- I think of something along the lines of "God", although that's admittedly an extreme example.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system. Like other socioeconomic systems -- e.g., feudalism -- it has some unique features which differentiate it from others. What is the unique feature?

Many say it's markets -- but those have been around since time immemorial.

Some say it's the profit motive -- but profit has been around a long time indeed.

Others say it involves ownership, particularly the ownership of the "means of production." The idea of ownership and the control over production seem to pre-date "capitalism," though.

Perhaps it's a combination -- one which seems to have arisen after the middle ages and especially with the industrial revolution.

Personally, I like Richard Wolff's tentative definition: capitalism is defined by the relationship between the employer and employee. Like the Lord and vassal/serf, or the master and slave, a unique relationship is the defining feature.

I’ll continue to dismiss ridiculous claims with no evidence, with zero apologies.

The issue is evidence, not sophomoric ideas about what “science” is.

Maybe we’re wrong about the teapot orbiting Mars, or about goblins. I suppose “dismissing” these things is also being “unscientific.” Give me a break.

More silly justifications for belief in magic and general nonsense. I hear it from creationists, astrologers, psychics, and flat earthers all the time. Same arguments.

I suggest growing up. A good antidote to childish beliefs.

A "return" to Thatcher and tired neoliberal policies. What a pity. But the Tories might as well go all-in while they can, before they're booted out a la 1997. Hopefully you don't end up with another Tony Blair. Starmer seems like a joke, but anything is an improvement over Truss.

I like that -- thanks.

There's no easy way to convert the system from manufacture for profit to manufacture for need. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

And yet you are not willing to consider me to be sincere when I have made such claims. — dclements

On the contrary, I think you're very sincere. I'm sure you think you've seen ghosts and ouija boards move, etc.

attacking straw men (with your arguments arguing against goblins and zombies which I have said nothing about) that you don't even know what I'm saying. — dclements

I know you haven't mentioned them. There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts.

All I said was I was at a cemetery on night (the actual cemetery happened to be Union in CT which has a history of things happening), one of the people I was with decided to walk further in than the rest of us, and when I shined a flashlight on him for a brief second I could see what appeared to be a combination of white and black shadows surrounding him and then they where gone. To me it would have been nothing more than a "trick of the light" (other than perhaps the sensation that there was a crowd surrounding the guy in the cemetery), except the person that brought us there said "Yes" when I asked him if he saw what I saw and he was visibly shaken from the experience. — dclements

And you conclude from this what exactly?

Do you know how many physical phenomena there are where something is able to move do to physical forces we can not see? For instances there is magnetism that allow objects to be either drawn together or apart by "invisible forces that can not be seen by the naked eye". — dclements

Sure. Gravity is a force -- pulls objects towards the earth all the time. I can't "see" gravity itself. True enough.

And it's also true that ouija boards don't move on their own.

It isn't heresy for someone to merely comment on the things they have seen in heard in their lifetime. — dclements

Stop with the victim act. I never said I considered it heresy — in fact I’ve said I think many people who make such claims are sincere.

And yet: there are no zombies. There are no ghosts. There are no goblins.

Since I have already stated that Ouija boards don't use magic, — dclements

So they can move “on their own”, but that’s not magic?

Again: ouija boards don’t move on their own. There’s no evidence for this, and it contradicts everything we know about the world and physics.

On the other hand, maybe trying to be a little more open-minded about certain things may not be something that a person such as yourself is ready for and/or might help you in your life. — dclements

True, I’m not very open minded when it comes to childish nonsense.

But you have every right to go on believing in fairytales. That’s your business.

I’d recommend everyone read about stock buybacks. A huge amount of profits go to these. Between buybacks and dividends, roughly 90% of profits go back to shareholders.

Who owns the shares? No surprise: the top 10%, 1%, 0.1%.

The profits should be distributed better — and that means giving workers a place in decision making. The current system is undemocratic and unjust.

The simplest way to change the undemocratic, plutocratic system is to take their property away from them without compensation. — Bitter Crank

Why is this simpler than having workers have a few board seats? I think that’s at least less extreme.

What if we were a species who found working for another individual (or small group) anathema? — Real Gone Cat

I think we already are that species— it’s just been beaten out of our heads in many countries.

An employee is not an owner, so should have no input in this. — noAxioms

They should have input, considering without them there is no company and no profits.

Unless of course we’re in favor of tyranny and slavery. But I’m in favor of democracy — whether in government or in a company.

But it belongs to the company, which in turn belongs to the owners of the company. — noAxioms

Says who?

But my point, I guess, is that much of our thinking amounts to nothing actually occurring. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the assumption that ‘thinking is doing’ is false, and can lead us to this addiction to thinking, a distortion that prioritises thinking over feeling and acting. — Possibility

Any thinking is an occurrence. It’s a happening. We can observe it, we can be aware of it. When I’m imagining something or talking to myself, something is happening. When I’m sitting and planning out something, I’m doing something. It’s a non-physical activity.

It’s just a way to talk about thought. I wouldn’t get hung up on that.

As for the rest of your response— there’s too many problems I have with it to go on about, as it’ll derail this thread. But I agree with almost none of it.

A quick reminder that shareholders are not the owners of the corporation.

I cannot agree that thinking is either physically confined within the brain or directly observable in time as an activity. These are probabilistic conclusions at best - a reductionist account. — Possibility

There’s nothing probabilistic or reductionist about it: thinking either occurs in time or it doesn’t.

You can also observe your own thoughts. You can observe your feelings, too. These are actual phenomena,

Again — what is the alternative besides magic?

what we name ‘thinking’ is evidence of thinking, based on perceived potentiality. — Possibility

“Perceived potentiality” doesn’t mean much to me. What we label “speech” is evidence of speaking, too. That we do that in our heads sometimes without making noise doesn’t strike me as requiring becoming spooky.

I guess I really don’t see your point.

Travels with Charley, John Steinbeck

For the second time.

So Trump can now declassify documents with the power of his very-stable-genius brain.

What are the odds that his defenders are engaging in elaborate satire?

First I think it's fair to point out that science is not a `thing,' it's the result of the work and study of individual human beings. — Xtrix

Why is science not a "thing"? Of course it's a thing. It's a human activity, yes. It's as much a thing as philosophy or art is a thing. It's just the name given for a certain kind of human activity.

So when you say science tries to corner the market on the definition of real do you mean it existed in Aristotle's science, Galileo's science, modern science? — Xtrix

It's not that science tries to corner the market, it's that science's ontology is essentially naturalism, a substance ontology. Perhaps many people claim science is the sole road to truth and "reality" -- that's undoubtedly true -- but science itself, as a human activity attempting to explain the world, assumes an idea about the world that attempts to explain it in terms of natural processes -- i.e., in terms of "nature." If it doesn't, it's not science. At least in my view.

In that respect, yes it existed from Aristotle onward -- all the ways its changed notwithstanding.

Thirdly, are you saying that, again, science tries to corner the market on the definition "real" for us back as far as the greeks, or is this a more recent development? — Xtrix

I'm saying science takes for granted that the world (and what's "real") is what's natural. Almost by definition. It assumes this. Anything "beyond" nature is considered supernatural and beyond science's understanding, and is usually (and rightly) met with skepticism.

Philosophy (and sometimes religion) isn't so restricted, however. In terms of ontology, which itself underlies science (natural philosophy), we can ask about beings in general -- and what "natural" beings are, what nature means, etc., and even inquire as to what being itself means. At the heart of this question is the nature of one being in particular, of course…the human being.

My view is that there is more to thinking than activity — Possibility

Speaking is always an activity: it occurs in time, or it doesn’t occur, and the difference is observable in time. — Possibility

Thinking occurs in time as well. Where do you think it takes place? Outside time?

Thinking takes place in the brain. It's a product of the human nervous system. It's not well defined, but it's certainly a human activity.

Unless of course it's magic. But I don't think it's worth discussing that possibility.

In my first encounter with ghost — dclements

There are no ghosts. There are no zombies. There are no goblins.

As with Ouija boards, how do you know whether they move on their own or not if you haven't even used them or seen other people try to use them? — dclements

I have used them and watched others use them. It’s long been a claim that they have magic powers.

They don’t.

it could be done through a subconscious act. — dclements

No, it can’t. It’s not plausible, it’s not possible, it’s not worth wasting time on.

Magic isn’t real. Sorry.

opened minded enough to realize that not all the things that associated with "magic" are really magic at all but perhaps are caused by some kind of physical phenomenon we have yet been able to identify and understand. — dclements

Yeah, and maybe Santa really does exist after all. Maybe there really is that teapot orbiting Mars. Maybe I can fly like Superman.

There’s equal evidence for all of it. Which is to say: none.

is factually incorrect by a significant margin. — 180 Proof

It isn’t. I quoted a snippet from the article, and I guess I can’t fault anyone for not reading it and taking my statement as a stand-alone— but the figure was from 2009, and is much more precise than simply looking at national emissions.

Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

I think this is likely any underestimate, but that’s another story.

The issue is one of communication. Better communication is necessary. The responsibility for this starts with each individual striving to listen with honesty and speak with honesty. — I like sushi

It may very well be why we’re in the mess we’re in. Perhaps greed as well. I tried listing some concrete problems without focusing on causes, I guess. But if I included those, communication would certainly factor in.

The problem identified is net overconsumption of and/or by national populations as shares of the global population. Why even mention "individual consumption"? — 180 Proof

Populations consist of individuals. So even per capita statistics are misleading. General national statistics or global statistics are even more misleading.

Citing the US, China, and India is fine — they are indeed the largest emitters. But that’s not saying much — and if used to justify the position that overpopulation is a driving issue, especially so.

41% of the world pop. (China, US & India) accounted for 60% of global carbon dioxide emissions (2019). — 180 Proof

Yep.

Important to remember that the issue isn’t individual consumption, however. It’s true that rich individuals consume more than poor ones. Taylor Swift flies her private jet around a lot, etc.

If we compare her to Darren Woods— she’s probably produced more CO2, in terms of individual consumption. That alone should tell you the true story of what’s going on, and why talk about individual “carbon footprint” is mostly the creation of the fossil fuel industry itself.

The issue is power. Power of a handful of people in government and business. They make decisions of production that we all live with. That’s true for China, India, and the US.

The issue is not increasing human populations. Maybe that’ll be a problem one day. It’s not a problem today.

No. We're "addicted" to beliefs. — 180 Proof

I wouldn't put it that way. I don't see beliefs as something like speaking or thinking, which I see as activities and, thus, can be analyzed in terms of habits and addiction.

But as far as our beliefs remain fairly consistent and (usually) immovable, I see what you mean.

However little we know about thoughts, we can't help having them. — Manuel

Sure. I'm talking more about a specific kind of thinking, which I differentiate from the "default mode" type of thinking that occurs all the time.

I rather someone addicted to thought harming no-one, than someone addicted to action without measuring consequences. — Manuel

Certainly.

Yes, they make the decisions, but they make the decisions as the extended power of the people. — god must be atheist

No they don’t. Governments are bought by corporations, and corporations are not governed by “the people” — they’re undemocratic.

If the people really did not like those decisions, then they would vote a government that reversed those decisions. — god must be atheist

Please do some reading. This is embarrassingly naive.

So stop saying that the cause of the world's problems are resting on the decisions of a few people. — god must be atheist

I will not stop saying it, because unlike most of what you’ve written, it has the merit of being true.

Your knowing nothing about corporate power and influence isn’t grounds for abandoning a well-documented analysis— sorry.

Yes, you did. — god must be atheist

No, I didn’t.

Now you say that the 7% is responsible for 100% of carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

What I said was:

"A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions." — god must be atheist

Which is true. See above about government and business.

If you’re really hung up on whether it counts for ALL emissions..,then no, of course not. Exhaling creates CO2, if we want to be childish and count that. But I’m not interested in childish discussions.

So... tell me, if overpopulation does not cause the shortages of water, arable land and natural resources that humanity uses... then what causes them. — god must be atheist

Decisions by a handful of people in government and business.

Now you say that the 7% is responsible for 100% of carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

I didn’t once say that.

How is overpopulation an abstraction? People are real. Their numbers are real. Their increasing number is a fact. — god must be atheist

Yes. People are real, and their numbers are increasing. The concept of “overpopulation,” however, is a myth and an abstraction. This isn’t hard.

You come out with outrageously wrong opinions: facts are abstractions in your view, historical numbers change at your whimsy to support your (false) arguments, and you are caught on contradicting yourself. — god must be atheist

Except that none of that is true. The truth is simply that you haven’t read carefully enough and are, as usual, misunderstanding and fabricating.

Back to the point: overpopulation is a myth and an excuse to divert attention from the real culprit of environmental destruction.

Since you’re not big on reading articles, I’ll quote the article I mentioned:

It’s the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — “over-consumers” in rich countries can blame “over-breeders” in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

Like with other subjects you don’t understand, a little research goes a long way.

Stop trying to figure things out from your armchair — you’re not good at it. Do some READING.

A hyperactive DMN (default mode network) is not conducive to well-being, I think, and the simple solution is to engage in activities that deactivate the DMN, such as meditation, long walks on the beach, dropping acid, or whatever. It helps to relax. — praxis

True. Our default mode is to be thinking in the sense of reverie and other types of non-philosophical thought. What I’m specifying here is philosophical thought, however.

Has what we call “philosophy” simply become another addiction? It often seems that way. And not the good kind either. Still, I think your suggestions apply equally to philosophical thought as to any thought.

Thinking is not just a kind of doing, any more than feeling is a kind of doing. — Possibility

Thinking is an activity that can (sometimes) be controlled. We’re “doing” something when we’re thinking. I mean it in this general sense. It’s not an action on par with running, but perhaps similar to speaking.

You seem to want to haul them back out for people who say there are witches — Srap Tasmaner

No, I’m saying those who say there are witches are deluded.

I’m not too interested in “nuance” when the claims are simply ridiculous. Witches, ghosts, demons, goblins, zombies, unicorns. Do we really need to be nuanced about these things?

I assume you mean by "small percentage of the world population" the highly civilized nations (HCN), to which millions flee, desperate to be admitted, for the promises of a better life. — jgill

Spare me clichés.

Millions flee to the countries that have systematically destroyed theirs, sure. No one doubts the US and other “highly civilized” countries are wealthy. They should be, having plundered the earth for centuries.

But no, I don’t just me the OECD countries. I mean exactly what I said: the wealthy and powerful class.

Were it not for the HCNs life would be barbaric with early deaths from disease and injuries. Look at the American Indians. — jgill

You’re right— I’m sure they’d thank us, too. Had we not brutally (“barbarically”) wiped out their civilizations. You know, us “highly civilized” types.

But if the laws of nature are in fact statistical — Srap Tasmaner

Gravity isn’t “statistical.” That things don’t move through walls, or move “on their own” through the power of the mind, shouldn’t be controversial.

People don’t fly like Superman, either. It’s not that it’s “statistically unlikely” — it’s that it’s impossible.

I see plenty of justification in this line.

Magical thinking is dangerous.

It is not only the carbon emissions that the overpopulation causes... arable land use, water use, depleting natural resources. — god must be atheist

“Overpopulation” doesn’t cause any of those things.

Overpopulation is an abstraction. Blaming the worlds problem on this abstraction is a useful ploy to divert from the reality — which is that the behavior of a small percentage of the world population is responsible for most problems.

B. is that 100% of the population is responsible for 100% of human-caused carbon emissions. — god must be atheist

No. This is completely wrong. A small percentage of the world is responsible for carbon emissions. Mainly the wealthiest and most powerful class of people, and multinational corporations.

Blaming the hundreds of millions of Africans — or lumping them in with everyone else, as if per capita emission averages don’t matter — is, again, a silly and destructive thing to do. Also happens to be shallow and incorrect.

Therefore I say, QED, that the biggest problem mankind faces is the trend of humans to propagate their numbers unchecked. — god must be atheist

And therefore I repeat, yet again, that this is complete rubbish.

Do you feel this shows that we’ve strayed from a more accurate portrayal of those terms? If not, I’m not sure what you’re point is, other than tracing the history of the words. — GLEN willows

The words help us see what's actually happening, and so it's important to understand them.

The point is this:

1) "Real" is a loaded term that usually is defined as anything that science says is real.
2) What is "science"? Science is natural philosophy. Its ontological underpinning is naturalism.
3) What is "nature"? The word comes from the Latin natura, which is a translation of the Greek phusis, which is also where we get "physics." What does phusis mean? For the earlier Greeks, it meant something like a blooming or emerging, and for the later Greeks (e.g., Aristotle), it starts to take on a meaning closer to ousia -- which gets translated often as substance.
4) "Nature" has its ontological roots in substance theory. Today we describe the material world of objects and use empirical means -- observation, experimentation, etc. -- to explain them. This is usually how science is characterized. Nature is matter, energy, and forces.

So in terms of what's real -- yes, I think it's an honorific term. All kinds of things are real. If we define what's real as what's scientific, or natural, then that itself has a long tradition associated with it. Why should substances be any more "real" than anything else?

I think we should learn a little something from the earlier Greeks: reality is this. It's what's happening in our awareness and, importantly, outside our awareness. It's what's present before us, but also what's absent.

Lots more to say about this but I'll leave it there.

one doesn't have require ANY proof if they are merely providing a potential possibility to be examined — dclements

So by this standard, we can invent any story we want. Maybe Santa Claus really exists in the north pole. Maybe Xarnex the galaxy god is responsible for all of your thoughts. Who knows?

Claims in science always require solid evidence and solid reasoning. It's never willy-nilly.

People who believe in psychics and astrology and all kinds of ridiculous stuff always make the same arguments. They either try to even the playing field by reducing everything -- including all science -- to mere speculation and opinion and "subjectivity" so that they can pretend that their views aren't ridiculous -- or else they persuade others into thinking their claims really are scientific in some fashion.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Hitchens
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -- Sagan

Two principles to abide by. Also, keep in my Russell's teapot.

By expecting those who are trying to explained unknown phenomenon in ANY scientific field to provide an unreasonable amount of data you (or anyone else doing this) are in effect merely trying to maintain the current status quo in order to prevent people from being able to come forward with ideas to challenge that which is the accepted "truth". — dclements

Complete nonsense.

It's not an "unreasonable amount of data," it's evidence. Evidence that is comparable to the claim being made.

If something isn't well understood, we can speculate and hypothesize about it -- but always with sound reasoning and at least some evidence as support. If the claim is something like "aliens did it," or that magic has occurred, then that will require a lot of evidence indeed.

So yes, suspending the known laws of the universe and everything we currently understand about the world is quite a claim. Claims such as these require more than just blurry photographs, anecdotes, and other flimsy "data."

It's no wonder there's never a shred of evidence for these claims. The simple reason is because they're not true. James Randi made an entire career out of demonstrating this -- offering people $1 million if they could prove their abilities. Not once was it realized. There's some hilarious videos on YouTube showing it, as well. Worthwhile taking a look at those and imagining all of their duped followers and how much money these charlatans made over the years. Remember, too, that many convinced themselves that they really had these abilities.

what would you say about those of us who have ever seen something like a ghost, and/or been able to get am Ouija board or Psi wheel to move on it's own. — dclements

I'd say that it's far more likely you've had an auditory or visual hallucination. I hear the voice of my dead grandmother sometimes, in passing. I'm not lead to believe that therefore she's in the next room, or is haunting me from the grave.

True, perhaps the laws of physics suspended for you momentarily -- but I wouldn't take that possibility very seriously. If I said to you that I had a friend who claimed he could fly, would you take this seriously?

Ouija boards don't move on their own. I stopped believing in fairytales and magic when I was a child. I recommend you do as well.

QED, it is the overpopulation and not the economic forces that drive us to annihilation or to something near to it. — god must be atheist

Except that’s a myth.

It’s not overpopulation. When 7% of the global population are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions— I don’t think “overpopulation” is the problem.

Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat

It’s a nice story to tell ourselves. It once again absolves the behavior of the affluent and the powerful — which is the true driving force — of responsibility. But like most stories told by the capitalist class, it’s complete bullshit the moment you think about it more deeply.

It’s on par with that other great story told about climate change: “natural forces.” “There’s little we can do, because…it’s the sun. There’s little we can do about global problems because… it’s overpopulation.”

Complete rubbish.

Recent article in the New York Times. For those that take issue with the phrase “most important” or argue — ridiculously, in my view — that we cannot really prioritize problems because they’re all interconnected, this article better demonstrates what I’ve been driving at.

I quote it at length:

This principle is what some health researchers mean by the idea that there are social determinants of health — that effective long-term solutions for many medicalized problems require nonmedical — this is to say, political — means. We all readily acknowledge that for diseases like diabetes and hypertension — diseases with a very clear biological basis — an individual’s body is only part of the causal reality of the disease. Treating the root cause of the “epidemic” of diabetes effectively, for example, would happen at the level of serious infrastructural changes to the available diet and activity levels of a population, not by slinging medications or pouring funding into clinics that help people make better choices in supermarkets filled with unregulated, unhealthy food. You’ve got to stop the guy running over people with the car.

[…]

This doesn’t mean that all psychiatric symptoms are caused by stress, but it does mean that a whole lot of them almost certainly are. There is increasingly strong evidence for the idea that chronic elevation of stress hormones has downstream effects on the neural architecture of the brain’s cognitive and emotional circuits. The exact relationship between different types of stress and any given cluster of psychiatric symptoms remains unclear — why do some people react to stress by becoming depressed, while others become impulsive or enraged? — indicating that whatever causal mechanism exists is mediated by a variety of genetic and social conditions. But the implications of the research are very clear: When it comes to mental health, the best treatment for the biological conditions underlying many symptoms might be ensuring that more people can live less stressful lives.

And here is the core of the problem: Medicalizing mental health doesn’t work very well if your goal is to address the underlying cause of population-level increases in mental and emotional distress. It does, however, work really well if you’re trying to come up with a solution that everybody in power can agree on, so that the people in power can show they’re doing something about the problem. Unfortunately, the solution that everyone can agree on is not going to work.

Everyone agrees, for instance, that it would be good to reduce the high rate of diabetes plaguing the United States. But once we begin to de-medicalize it, diabetes starts to look like a biological problem arising from a vast swathe of political problems: transportation infrastructure that keeps people sedentary in cars, food insecurity that keeps a racialized underclass dependent on cheap and empty calories, the power of corporate lobbies to defang regulations, and so on. These are problems that people do not agree on how to solve, in part because some are materially benefiting from this state of affairs. This is to say, these are political problems, and solving them will mean taking on the groups of people who benefit from the status quo.

[…]

And yet when the plan addresses suicide, it focuses on crisis intervention — as if suicide were a kind of unfortunate natural occurrence, like lightning strikes, rather than an expression of the fact that growing numbers of people are becoming convinced that the current state of affairs gives them no reason to hope for a life they’d want to live.

Solving the mental health crisis, then, will require fighting for people to have secure access to infrastructure that buffers them from chronic stress: housing, food security, education, child care, job security, the right to organize for more humane workplaces and substantive action on the imminent climate apocalypse. — Dr. Danielle Carr

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/opinion/us-mental-health-politics.html

Here I think it’s clear: while climate change, for example, is existential— it is, ultimately, a symptom: a result of a political and economic decisions, motivated by greed. Capitalism, then, is indeed the “infrastructure” that needs to be undone.

Like if you discarded your priors about how nature worked, would you be able to conclude that supernatural claims are bogus methodologically rather than being inconsistent with well established theory? — fdrake

I think my conclusion would be the same. If I knew nothing about the laws of nature, an extraordinary claim would still need a lot of supporting evidence.

To bring it out of the clouds, I like to think of someone coming to me claiming they have a map to buried treasure. Nothing about this defies the laws of physics, but it’s an extraordinary claim. I think the same principle applies here too.

Not sure if that answers your question.