4 ms·

> Limiting the consumption seems logical. Lots of "plans" seem logical and this is precisely why technocracy is a vexation on society. Unintended consequences

> Limiting the consumption seems logical. Lots of "plans" seem logical and this is precisely why technocracy is a vexation on society. Unintended consequences. The presumption of knowledge and control. All of these elite presumptions are illusory and fundamentally hubristic. You know why "limiting the consumption" of alcohol is a dumb suggestion? We have tons of evidence that it was a massive failure: Prohibition and the War on Drugs. No matter how well-intended you are - it'll backfire and people will ignore it. Humans are fundamentally social creatures. Millions of years of evolution have seared into their biology the instinct to be social. The idea that we can force humans into acting against their fundamental instincts to socialize is folly. Not only folly - but abuse. But seriously, it's bizarre. The obdurance of so-called experts set on working against the grain of every human instinct, as though that's likely to maximize the success of their plans.

f6v 6y ago
> The idea that we can force humans into acting against their fundamental instincts to socialize is folly. Do you really want to go down that road? Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? Didn’t think so. You see how folly your argument is?
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? This is non-sequitur. A better comparison is like legally enforcing abstinence to eradicate HIV. If you can't get the idea that isolation is counter-intuitive to humans and damaging to their health and psychology, and therefore bound to be hard to get compliance, I'm not sure what to say. This is why jail is jail. Isolation is unnatural. It's punishment. No one voluntary chooses this.
  - f6v 6y ago
    Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? > isolation is counter-intuitive to humans 20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so is math. We get by. I’m not denying that what is asked from people is a huge sacrifice. But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      > How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? This is where things go wrong. You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts to socialize. As though it's selfish to not want to be locked in your house indefinitely. There is a striking resemblance here of the tactics used by abusers and emotional manipulators. > But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable. That's a completely presumptuous personal view - for a very large and underappreciated segment of the population, the ongoing lockdown measures to combat coronavirus are absolutely devastating.
      - jasonlaramburu 6y ago
        >You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts There are many 'natural' human instincts that are harmful to society and are either strongly discouraged or outlawed (violence, drug abuse, overeating to name a few).
        gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        "Harmful to society" is a poor standard used to justify a lot of evil stuff. That standard once included homosexuality. It was the basis for eugenics. Also like I mentioned before - Prohibition. It's a standard that's ultimately subjective and self-deceiving. You're arguing that we should outlaw something that's vital to human life. Social interaction. Violence, on the other hand, is clearly not necessary or virtuous. Isolation is a form of punishment and I hope you're not saying that we all must be punished for the greater good and any dissent is evil. That's borderline cultish.
        qubitcoder 6y ago
        Have you considered that these measures are _temporary_? If people shared the same ideas about sacrifice, the United States would've never prevailed in WWII. Personally, it seems like objections to basic preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, are more rooted in ego and entitlement. And that is often coupled with spurious ideas about government overreach (which, while sometimes valid, isn't exactly a cogent argument in the United States, where shared ideals on liberty and limited government are so deeply ingrained).

f6v 6y ago

> The idea that we can force humans into acting against their fundamental instincts to socialize is folly. Do you really want to go down that road? Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? Didn’t think so. You see how folly your argument is?

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> Well, here we go: procreation is a fundamental human instinct. Do you want to legalize rape? This is non-sequitur. A better comparison is like legally enforcing abstinence to eradicate HIV. If you can't get the idea that isolation is counter-intuitive to humans and damaging to their health and psychology, and therefore bound to be hard to get compliance, I'm not sure what to say. This is why jail is jail. Isolation is unnatural. It's punishment. No one voluntary chooses this.
- f6v 6y ago
  Individual’s comfort can’t be a number one priority in a times of crisis. Sitting at home in a digital age when video calling anyone in the world is absolutely free, it’s the least you can do. Also all the entertainment which is available nowadays. How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? > isolation is counter-intuitive to humans 20 million cities are counterintuitive, and so is math. We get by. I’m not denying that what is asked from people is a huge sacrifice. But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > How hard can it be to make this sacrifice so that someone’s grandma doesn’t die? This is where things go wrong. You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts to socialize. As though it's selfish to not want to be locked in your house indefinitely. There is a striking resemblance here of the tactics used by abusers and emotional manipulators. > But not the biggest sacrifice you can imagine. And it’s definitely manageable. That's a completely presumptuous personal view - for a very large and underappreciated segment of the population, the ongoing lockdown measures to combat coronavirus are absolutely devastating.
    - jasonlaramburu 6y ago
      >You're shaming people for feeling natural human instincts There are many 'natural' human instincts that are harmful to society and are either strongly discouraged or outlawed (violence, drug abuse, overeating to name a few).
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        "Harmful to society" is a poor standard used to justify a lot of evil stuff. That standard once included homosexuality. It was the basis for eugenics. Also like I mentioned before - Prohibition. It's a standard that's ultimately subjective and self-deceiving. You're arguing that we should outlaw something that's vital to human life. Social interaction. Violence, on the other hand, is clearly not necessary or virtuous. Isolation is a form of punishment and I hope you're not saying that we all must be punished for the greater good and any dissent is evil. That's borderline cultish.
        qubitcoder 6y ago
        Have you considered that these measures are _temporary_? If people shared the same ideas about sacrifice, the United States would've never prevailed in WWII. Personally, it seems like objections to basic preventive measures, such as wearing a mask, are more rooted in ego and entitlement. And that is often coupled with spurious ideas about government overreach (which, while sometimes valid, isn't exactly a cogent argument in the United States, where shared ideals on liberty and limited government are so deeply ingrained).