3 ms·

> “What’s actually bizarre…” It’s almost like there’s a difference between shooting something in the face, and pressing a button on my phone to make food appea

> “What’s actually bizarre…” It’s almost like there’s a difference between shooting something in the face, and pressing a button on my phone to make food appear outside my door. Not saying there aren’t repugnant aspects of both, but one is quite a bit more visceral and direct.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
haswell 4y ago
I can't help but feel that this reinforces the parent comment's point. As long as the only thing we have to do is push a button, the reality behind the food we're about to eat is shielded from us. Despite knowing this, we continue to behave in ways that run counter to a rational examination of the realities behind pushing that button. And we default to focusing on factors like the visceral nature of the experience instead of the implications of the choice. This is a pretty common default in our current culture, and so the bizarre-ness to me is more about our instincts to continue making the bad choice just because it's easier right now and we won't have to pay for the long term repercussions personally. It's bizarre upon closer examination because it's a self-harming behavior that we collectively engage in, even if it can be explained mechanically in terms of evolutionary reward systems that are in need of an upgrade. None of this is to excuse modern forms of hunting for sport, but we are predators, and only our continued evolution of consciousness/culture will move us beyond that. That predatory behavior continues to exist is not surprising, nor is our tendency to overuse food delivery services.
- waldothedog 4y ago
  Avoiding discomfort is pretty much the default operating mode of the brain. There is little to no “rational examination of the realities behind pushing that button” — because that examination hurts. And I am not sure the behaviors are so much collective + self-harming as they are individual + collective-harming. Like you said: I don’t have to pay for the long-term repercussions personally. I feel like this comment is drifting into gross pedantry, but I am really not trying to argue semantics. Just wanted to underscore that we might not be meeting people where they are (which is probably important if we want to change their disposition)
  - haswell 4y ago
    First, I think that calling attention to our tendency to avoid difficult things is a really good call. This mindset extends to almost everything in life, and can have serious consequences. Relinquishing this dislike of discomfort is at the center of many contemplative practices for good reason. > And I am not sure the behaviors are so much collective + self-harming as they are individual + collective-harming. I would argue that the behaviors are both. One gives rise to the other, and the other reinforces the former. They are collective + self-harming because the collective behavior lulls the individual into a sense of "I don't need to think about this either". The end result is an action taken without an understanding of the consequences, even if those consequences may eventually kill me. They are self-harming + collective because the individual who is aware of the impact but chooses to engage in it anyway is now doing so in spite of the knowledge. And that stance is also exported to the collective - "The people who have thought about this are still charging ahead anyway, so I might as well". > we might not be meeting people where they are (which is probably important if we want to change their disposition) Meeting people where they are is something that I care about, and I think it's a good mindset to apply to issues like this. With that said, it's not clear to me which aspects of the conversation here aren't meeting people where they are, and how the semantic distinction (if it exists) clears that up. How can we repackage this more clearly to meet people where they are?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

haswell 4y ago

I can't help but feel that this reinforces the parent comment's point. As long as the only thing we have to do is push a button, the reality behind the food we're about to eat is shielded from us. Despite knowing this, we continue to behave in ways that run counter to a rational examination of the realities behind pushing that button. And we default to focusing on factors like the visceral nature of the experience instead of the implications of the choice. This is a pretty common default in our current culture, and so the bizarre-ness to me is more about our instincts to continue making the bad choice just because it's easier right now and we won't have to pay for the long term repercussions personally. It's bizarre upon closer examination because it's a self-harming behavior that we collectively engage in, even if it can be explained mechanically in terms of evolutionary reward systems that are in need of an upgrade. None of this is to excuse modern forms of hunting for sport, but we are predators, and only our continued evolution of consciousness/culture will move us beyond that. That predatory behavior continues to exist is not surprising, nor is our tendency to overuse food delivery services.

waldothedog 4y ago
Avoiding discomfort is pretty much the default operating mode of the brain. There is little to no “rational examination of the realities behind pushing that button” — because that examination hurts. And I am not sure the behaviors are so much collective + self-harming as they are individual + collective-harming. Like you said: I don’t have to pay for the long-term repercussions personally. I feel like this comment is drifting into gross pedantry, but I am really not trying to argue semantics. Just wanted to underscore that we might not be meeting people where they are (which is probably important if we want to change their disposition)
- haswell 4y ago
  First, I think that calling attention to our tendency to avoid difficult things is a really good call. This mindset extends to almost everything in life, and can have serious consequences. Relinquishing this dislike of discomfort is at the center of many contemplative practices for good reason. > And I am not sure the behaviors are so much collective + self-harming as they are individual + collective-harming. I would argue that the behaviors are both. One gives rise to the other, and the other reinforces the former. They are collective + self-harming because the collective behavior lulls the individual into a sense of "I don't need to think about this either". The end result is an action taken without an understanding of the consequences, even if those consequences may eventually kill me. They are self-harming + collective because the individual who is aware of the impact but chooses to engage in it anyway is now doing so in spite of the knowledge. And that stance is also exported to the collective - "The people who have thought about this are still charging ahead anyway, so I might as well". > we might not be meeting people where they are (which is probably important if we want to change their disposition) Meeting people where they are is something that I care about, and I think it's a good mindset to apply to issues like this. With that said, it's not clear to me which aspects of the conversation here aren't meeting people where they are, and how the semantic distinction (if it exists) clears that up. How can we repackage this more clearly to meet people where they are?