Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc
I wonder how far stupidity can go on 21 century...
What if someone start some new stupidity for fun, evem more stupid, spread the idea, just to see how many retards would get into ?
What could be even more stupid and grabe more people?
Why psychiatry don't classify these people as mentally ill?
|
Flat Earthers are an extremely small and harmless group. There's no reason to worry about them. I doubt most religious people think the world is only 5,000 years old, but it doesn't really matter anyhow since being wrong about that has little consequence.
Ever heard the phrase "drink the kool aid"? There was a small cult that committed suicide by drinking poison... There's always been extreme ideas by a minority of people, and there always will be. Usually it's benign, and sometimes it's tragic.
I'm more concerned with the things the majority of people are wrong about, or the things which being wrong carries severe consequence. aerohead's belief that climate change poses severe consequences falls is an example of how if the majority of us are wrong about the severity and urgency of the problem, then it could be disastrous.
Classifying mental illness has some utility, but I question how much. The classification is useful so far as it gives people a general idea of someone's behavior, and might even specify certain chemical imbalances, which is even more useful, but every person is different, and we live on a spectrum. We've all got behavior which can be vastly improved even if we fall within "normal" range.
I too am skeptical about the effectiveness of counseling, but that might be due to my limited experiences as a "patient" where the psychiatrist talked almost entirely about himself, and things that didn't interest me. There is great utility though in having someone help an individual examine their life to see what works well for them, and what doesn't.
I don't really view psychiatric medicine much differently than biologic medicine. Knowledge of how the body and mind works is extremely poor. In medicine, the approach is to try the therapy with the highest chance to succeed, evaluate the results, and try other therapies if the problem persists.
To that end, how is that really any different than anything else in life? We try the things we believe to be most likely to produce the results we want. There may be better ways to achieve the results we want, but they aren't known to us. Our ideal results may not even be known by us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
This 'load' you refer to is exists at the pleasure of the people.If enough voices are raised,that load is doomed and all the livelihoods that go with it.
We'll find training and other employment for the displaced.Like we did for whalers and livery stable owners.
When the time comes,and we have excess capacity,we may again entertain the idea of boutique,bourgeoisie,mindless consumption.
Haute Couture,or hot planet,take your pick.
|
Expecting people to "vote" for lower wealth is like expecting congress to vote to have their pay cut. Even with clear evidence that the government spends way more than it takes, they will still vote to raise their own pay, despite a clear problem.
I'm pessimistic that the majority of people can change their behavior to live less extravagantly. After all, the consumption of any 1 individual makes no difference at all. It's along the same line of reasoning that I don't vote; the options aren't good, and my single vote won't make any difference.
How to change the behavior of the masses when individually it doesn't matter? I think that's where the religious aspect becomes useful. Piety is motivating, but easily leads to arrogance.