The Poison We Pick

it must be taken as a given that change (i.e., progress) will happen. you can thank the 2nd law of thermodynamics for that. so then the perspective must shift from “can we keep the world the same as we imagine it to have been in the past (while ignoring all the bad parts and negative consequences)?” to “how do we deal with a changing world, adapt to it, and focus our efforts toward positive change?” we just don’t get to sit still. life only happens in the gap between order and chaos.

the quote i prefer is

“The oxytocin we experience from love or friendship or orgasm is chemically replicated by the molecules derived from the poppy plant. It’s a shortcut — and an instant intensification — of the happiness we might ordinarily experience in a good and fruitful communal life. It ends not just physical pain but psychological, emotional, even existential pain.”

this articulates a mechanism by which opioid addiction lodges itself in the failed corners of society. so how do we fix that? it’s not by considering addicts criminals. the “war on drugs” experiment has proven that doesn’t work. instead, we need to accept the social responsibility of creating “losers” in the first place. we need to progress to the next level of societal structure that redirects folks back into meaningful and purposeful lives.

i think the stage might be set to move to a kind of globally-aware localism. that is, having people focus on their microcommunities (the 5-10 block radius around where we live in cities, a bit bigger in less dense areas). how do we organize homes, schools, businesses, offices, services, etc. in ways that reinforce our ties to each other rather than two-dimensional celebrities and fantasies of far-off wealth and fame that make you feel like you’re losing? but also use technology to learn from those far-flung places to improve your own lives locally. you only need a few people around you appreciating your efforts to get plenty of oxytocin to forget about the hard opioids.

I smell survivorship bias.

Have the masses of humanity ever had dignity?

In the distant past the peasantry were largely illiterate, so nothing of them survives. What we get are a lot of stories written by upper class literate people suggesting that they had dignity and meaning.

In the more recent past they lacked access to broadcast media or television stations, so very little of them survives. What we get is again a lot of survivorship bias.

Now they all have Internet connections and can fill cyberspace with their cries for help, so now we say "hey, why are all these people so unhappy?"

History is one consistent story of wars over nothing, constant crime and drama, and escapism through sex, drugs, entertainment, and religion-used-as-opiate. Those are things that people who lack a sense of dignity or purpose do to pass the time until they die.

Pretty strong statement

You could check out the article at top of this page since you’re so close.

Most TV shows or movies have numerous. Have you ever watched TV shows or...

Actually, since these things are so easy to find, I think it’s safe to assume you don’t even know where to start. We could start with your comments for inspiration.

I just copied the very first one in your profile becaue it includes a good start of what an example of this could look like.

“Start your own category, create software for it, then convince everyone that the category is important.”

This sounds like advice on how to navigate a market, which is an effort that will represent our force. There are many economic theories to explain why markets are the best environment to generate useful products. Can you imagine how your advice could lead to a product that is not useful? I can: if the category is not important but you succeed in convincing people that it is, what have we accomplished collectively? Nothing important! That is for sure.

Well, the problem about things like social stability, tradition, religion, and civil associations is they are important.

If your advice is enough to do well in a free-market economy, then that is good for you, and somebody else will do the important things. This is all fine and good assuming somebody else doesn’t fuck up.

But what if somebody else is an HN reader? And what if they come across your revalational advice, and realize they can just convince people things are important instead of doing the important things? They quit the important things.

Now there is nobody tending to important things: social stability, tradition, religion, civil associations which is a sure bet for havoc!

Easy shmeezy. It’s right under your nose if you pay any attention at all. Maybe you are an example yourself. Seems possible.