This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Right, I phrase is as us having removed virtually all of the actual 'struggles' that one used to undergo to become a fully actualized human, and 'replaced' them with artificial struggles of various sorts which have no real consequences for failure.
For many people, life in the western world is an amusement park ride, and not even the Action Park kind of ride where you actually risk serious injury. The Disney kind that is simultaneously engineered to make you feel strong emotions, maybe even fear, and yet keep any risk of liability to an absolutely minimum.
Which is fine, for children, but as an adult you are just too aware of that fact that the cart is on a steel track determining where you go and the monsters are animatronic puppets, you can't actually feel the same rush of joy from it anymore.
What also somewhat surprises me is that with the decline in religious fervor, we haven't managed to swap in an actual aspirational endeavor which can serve a similar function. We can look and see an endless frontier in outer space, we have the basic tech to push out into that great beyond, why do people instead seem to latch onto self-defeating degrowth ideologies?
Other than the fact that it benefits some subset of the population to spread such ideologies.
For some reason this comment reminds me very much of Jaron Lanier’s contrast between God and humans.
What you describe was also a major theme of the later Dune books. Namely that conflict and struggle was an inherent part of not just what humans are, but what animates our lives and gives us meaning and fulfillment. The lack of that was what led ultimately into the ensuing dark ages where space travel no longer happened.
I used to have this uneasy feeling I could never shake as a kid, about nomadic societies. How they were always moving from once place to another to satisfy their needs. But it wasn’t simply to change with the seasons so you could grow your crops and maintain the tribe. They were moving from place to place seeking meaning and a way to scratch that cognitive itch; in the same way people today can get up and move at a moment’s notice as if they’re running away from their problems, but never being able to escape them completely. I think America is a very unsettled society. And the more obstacles we remove and problems we solve, doesn’t just remove the obstacles we have with nature and the problems we have in society. It removes those obstacles that are necessary to keep that existential void at bay, in humanity.
Almost everything I've learned about human psychology and biology suggests to me that (non fatal) struggle with real consequences on the line is extremely good for human health.
On a cellular level, there's strong evidence that proteins that repair celullar DNA are activated if certain adverse conditions are detected, such as caloric deficits, extreme heat, or extreme cold. If we experience physical deprivation, our cells are designed to repair themselves rather than reproduce as a survival mechanism. It's not woo, it's not pseudoscience, it's literally in our blood.
Another obvious example is physical fitness. Whether it is cardiovascular health or straight up strength training, the only way to improve is to continually expose yourself to moderate amounts of hardship. Strength training is the act of intentionally inducing muscle damage which is then repaired stronger than before. You cannot improve without first hurting yourself.
And consider that high intensity interval training has proven to be just about the most efficient way to get yourself 'in shape.' That is, literally short bursts of heavy 'struggle' until you exhaust yourself, a period of rest, then more bursts of struggle.
Also why I applaud the rise of combat sports since physical challenging oneself to a friendly fight against someone of approximately equal skill (that is NOT trying to kill you) is an excellent mental and physical workout that can lead one to feel more confident and, possibly, fulfilled.
So in a world where all the challenges are artificial and have no risk, it is not surprising that people would start becoming unhealthy and unhappy.
Humans simply are not designed to live lives of nonstop leisure, without something in their environment that must be overcome.
I like BJJ. I like the aesthetic of boxing and football...but really dislike the fucking CTE. That robs brave men of their selves. Maybe there'd be fewer concussions in bare knuckle boxing or something.
Also, my rationale for the Hock.
I think there should be an additional way to get into an elite college. You can still get in because you're an Olympic swimmer, or won an international math competition for high schoolers four years in a row, or because you're the daughter of a sitting U.S. President. But for mere mortals willing to put everything on the line...
I was thinking about an idea for Ivy League admissions reform: the ruling class and those that wind up hanging around them don't have to take much personal risk to get there. In ages past, until a few months into WWI, aristocrats were expected to take personal risk by going to war; many of the sons of aristocrats pulled strings to get sent to the trenches. War is more dangerous now than it was in 1900, and warmongering isn't exactly a good or necessary thing for the United States.
Therefore, I propose Admission of the Hock. Those with SATs over 1300 or ACTs over 27 who are in the top 15 percent of their high school class are eligible for the Hock. In early March, participants are parachuted onto a frozen lake in a boreal forest in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They're allowed anything they can carry on their back except for firearms, maps, and communication devices. No rescue beacons, either. If they survive by making it back to civilization under their own power, they receive admission to an Ivy League school.
If you want something - if you truly, honestly believe in something - that means being willing to risk your life for it and to suffer for it. There's very little of that nowadays in America outside of the combat arms. The likes of Harvard and Yale and by extension the American aristocracy would thus be leavened by large numbers of people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to ascend the class ladder. These people would know suffering and want as they had not in their sheltered childhoods. They would understand the whims of Mother Nature; they would know viscerally for the rest of their lives that the universe will not bend to their will.
What do you think?
TL;DR If you can do the work at Fancy Elite College and graduate, but you're not a rockstar, you can get dumped into the Alaskan wilderness in winter. Make it out alive and you're in.
Yes, some would become frozen popsicles and have their carcasses eaten by wolves or something. Others would lose fingers and toes. But the survivors would be stronger. And a thousand years ago - or even two hundred years ago? Most people that survived to adulthood would have watched siblings die and not been able to do anything about it; most parents watched their children die unable to do anything about it. "No parent should bury a child" is a sentiment that can't be much more than a hundred years old.
More options
Context Copy link
Your examples don't show that artificial challenge doesn't work - rather the opposite. Lifting isn't real work and combat sports aren't real fights. They're hard but they're very much artificial. As for cell repairing triggers - are old fixed-up cells really better than new cells?
I'm just commenting on the apparent inbuilt contradiction of humans needing to undergo painful, mildly damaging experiences to become more healthy. Your health does not rely on avoiding all harms and living a life of absolute comfort. It relies on actively struggling to a particular degree.
This probably applies on the psychological level too. Undergo TOO MUCH mental stress, and you get trauma, which is bad. Undergo and overcome the mental stress, and you get stronger.
I'm asserting that we're removing the mild challenges that would serve to mentally strengthen people as they grow up, and so when the finally encounter actual challenges they are mentally unprepared, and tend to fold or shy away.
They ARE better, if the new cells are imperfect copies of the old cells. In the worst case the new cells have mutations that make them cancerous, eventually killing the organism when the 'new' cells replicate too rapidly.
So in order to have healthy new cells, you need to make accurate copies of old cells (or, at least, the DNA used to construct them).
Sirtuins are what do the error-checking and DNA repair to make sure that the DNA being replicated is well-maintained and accurate, so that fewer errors accumulate over time.
IN THEORY, if you could ensure that every single copy of a cell contains a 100% pristine copies of the previous cells' DNA, your organs could keep functioning indefinitely, showing few if any signs of aging.
https://www.orentreich.org/new-study-supports-the-information-theory-of-aging-and-its-potential-to-combat-aging/
The irony is that the mechanism for DNA repair is activated by conditions that mimic adversity and scarcity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“War is a force that gives us meaning”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link