The World Events Thread

[RUPERTKBD]

Very sad that this sort of thing still happens in this country:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/quebec-hockey-player-and-his-family-taunted-by-racist-fans/ar-BBU7T3q?li=AAggXBV

Quote

 

A Quebec hockey league has apologized to a black player who says he and his family left a game before the third period because they were being taunted with racist remarks from the stands.

Jonathan Diaby, 24, is a defenceman for the Marquis de Jonquière, a team in the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey, a Quebec-based, semi-professional independent hockey league.

On Saturday night, his team was playing against the Pétroliers du Nord, based in Saint-Jérôme, Que., about 60 kilometres northwest of Montreal.

Diaby said during the game, he and his family members were called the N-word and compared to baboons.

 

Sports fans can be the greatest people......

 

....unfortunately, they can also be the worst....

[bishopshodan]

21 hours ago, Lancaster said:

There seem to be some responsibility avoidance being championed by some people.  It's never their fault they use drug.  It's never their fault they have some catchy disease.  It's never their fault they are impoverished.  It's never their fault... etc, etc, etc.  

It's always society's fault or insert whatever boogieman for the 2-minutes of hate.  

 

Those who are suffering from whatever forms of psychological problems or abuse, trapped in the malaise of the DTES, being enabled by all the poverty pimps..... I can understand if their only release from their bodily suffering is via drugs.  But to almost literally playing Russian Roulette... lets just say that living doesn't seem like a high priority for them.  

 

As for those "recreational" users... screw them.  Not sure why society has to free sympathy for their stupidity.  You hear about how they're your everyday person... but since they are fully functioning, capable of rational thought... they are just personally choosing to engage in risky behaviour.  If they die, then so be it.  Should they be adrenaline addict speeding and driving off the Sea-to-Sky... we'd be handing them the Darwin's Award. 

I could probably go out to find and use drugs, but I don't because I want to be responsible.  It's not about being a square or I'm lucky to have a stress-free life (I've been to hell and back these past 2 years.....) but my life doesn't exist in a vacuum.  I have to think about my wife, my child and my friends.  If I value getting high over all that... then I fully responsible for all consequences.

 

 

The types of people that loiter there has changed too.  I remember going to Chinatown and venturing past that area to go to Army&Navy with my parents during the 80's and 90's.  My dad said that back in those days, most of the people there are usually just the (passive) homeless and/or drunks.  Now they're crackheads and other less than mentally stable people who are very aggressive.  I'm glad there's more cops in the area.

 

My wife works at the Japanese school there and she's always shocked by the behaviour of the homeless people there.  Japanese homeless people are very different from the North American homeless.  When I sometimes (accidentally) go to Tennoji (the DTES equivalent in Osaka), people are generally polite.  You see them picking up trash, sprucing up the area, just hanging out and most aren't even begging.  More actually engage in some low-level commerce to make ends meet.  

Here, you have people actively breaking into cars to steal coins.  One time I'm just sitting in my car to pickup my wife and some woman just opened my car door.  I only just said, "Excuse me?!" as my baby was in the backseat.... but she then just walked away pretending if nothing happened.  

I understand what you are saying. I am soo tired of dealing with the mess. No lie, I counted 5 needles ( with some blood and feces ) up and down just one stairwell of that garbage Tinseltown Mall just yesterday. 

 

It is my belief that people will keep doing drugs. I've been around the DTES for 25 years and it has gotten a lot worse. With what the future of drug looks like  (size / potency ), no enforcement will stop them. Especially in a port city. 

 

People will keep dying, cost to health care and emergency response and all that goes along with it will continue..

The criminals will keep raking in the cash on the black market and all that goes along with that will continue...

 

I would like some ultimate ownership over their actions. If an activity isn't putting anyone else in harms way, why is it illegal? You do drugs, thats on you for all the results that come with it. But why let the organised crime groups sell it? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lockout Casualty]

 

12 hours ago, Kragar said:

I'd like to challenge your statement about alcohol being as bad as heroin.  If your talking about people who abuse either of them, you may well be right.  But heroin is more addictive.  2/3rds of the users in the US report being addiction or abuse of heroin.  At best, one in five are addicted to alcohol.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pubs/2018-cdc-drug-surveillance-report.pdf

https://www.alcohol.org/statistics-information/

 

Legalization does not get rid of illegal sources, either, especially when government is trying to tax it so much to help cover other costs.  Dealers still sell weed in Colorado and other "legal" states, and one of the reasons for this is cost.  Government taxation and dispensary overhead costs still have to be covered, things that dealers don't have (sure, they have other costs)

 

So, costs will still be high, so addicts will still steal our stuff.  Overdoses may drop due to better product, as you claim, but will it reduce the addictive nature enough to matter?  I doubt it.

 

As @canuckistani points out, the declining family culture in our countries is a factor that should not be ignored either.

You're right, I was off. Alcohol may be worse.

 

My post wasn't exclusively about which drug destroys the body the fastest. Sure, heroin will destroy your body in 10 years of abuse, and alcohol will do it in 15. Does it mean alcohol is so much better? No, my point was that both, individual and societal harm caused by these drugs is great. And if we were to discuss the important part for the libertarian prohibition crowd, heroin causes much lower societal harm than alcohol, whereas alcohol is less destructive to the individual. You'd think self-proclaimed libertarians would take this as an indication that heroin would be preferable to alcohol in society, but here we are. Then again, I never put any stock into libertarian ideology.

 

And while important, addictive quality of certain drugs is not a sole, or even the most pertinent indication of its harm. Nicotine is nearly as addictive as heroin and alcohol, but nobody is making the claim it's the worst drug. And also let's not forget that just like functioning alcoholics, there are thousands of functional heroin and cocaine users. Not everyone that tries hard drugs will become either hopelessly addicted or homeless.

 

I have numerous times alluded to my own drug use in these discussions. I use cocaine occasionally with my friends. I have a well paying job, a young baby girl, a home I own. It affects my life less than my friends' drinking does theirs, because cocaine wears off in a couple of hours and I'm not a zombie for 24-48 hours like my friends after a night of boozin'. And neither am I addicted. I go weeks to months without using or thinking about it. Lucky for me, I also have a trusted source, so I'm never worried about fentanyl, which has affected casual cocaine users just like hardcore heroin users we typically think of when drug ODs are mentioned. I recall witnessing an OD from cocaine at a local pub, due to laced drugs. The person was doing nothing different than any other person in the establishment - getting effed up. Except his preferred method was illegal, and therefore outside of any regulation and susceptible to street dealer tactics of buffing it.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/nz-drug-harm-index-2016-2nd-ed-jul16.pdf

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774

 

Legalization is not a perfect solution, no. However,  it is the most effective at both, reducing societal harm and rates of addiction and self-destruction. Take a look at the way things have been going since the drug war began in the 70s. Can you say honestly that prohibition has worked in any way (aside from appeasing morality police)? I think that's a solid "NO". What we've been doing has not worked, more people than ever are dying from drugs in Vancouver. Heroin use is on the rise in the US, according to the CDC (not this CDC, the important one).

 

Yes, places like California are screwing up legalization because of high taxes. When I was there last spring, I paid $20/gram, whereas in BC I paid about $7/gram in US dollars, and it was still illegal here back then. This will allow a black market to flourish. I was also told I can't buy from a shop because I didn't have my passport, forcing me to buy from the black market on Venice Beach. That's not the story everywhere. In Colorado, weed prices have crashed so fast that a pound today is worth less than half what it was 2 years ago. And it's trickled down to the customers. In Oregon, price of a gram has dropped from $14/g to $7/g.

 

At the end of the day, it is a product like any other, and as legalization spreads, it'll continue to drop in price, squeezing out the black market. Maybe there will still be black market, cigarettes have had one for decades. However, if we accept one truth, it is that people will always want to get high. That is not a fight that can be won, not with prohibition, not with legalization, not with education. It's a fact of life, just like changing of seasons or death and taxes. You can't fix it, you can't fight it, you can only accept the reality and work within this framework to reduce harm. Which is what I've been advocating for years. 

 

When it comes to heroin, I don't know what framework will be required to implement legalization. It certainly won't be like marijuana. However, there is no reason for these drugs to be expensive. I would support subsidizing heroin for those with addiction, while also providing programs to help people quit and recover. It doesn't bother me to pay for someone's high. What bothers me are the bike theft epidemic in Vancouver; the senseless deaths from fentanyl laced drugs, in DTES and everywhere else; the exorbitant prices on the street that go into the pockets of organized crime. So really, is it the addictive nature of these drugs that's the issue? Or that they're not regulated and can be akin to playing Russian roulette, while funding criminal organizations? I would say it's the latter, but YMMV.

 

As for declining culture, I am at a loss what to say there. I can raise my children, I can't raise yours or anyone else's. I've seen kids from good families fall victim to drugs and I've seen kids from broken homes avoid them at all costs. If you or Canuckistani have a plan how to deal with changing family dynamic in the modern world, I applaud you and bid you good luck in implementing it. I don't see how pinning things on "culture" does anyone any good, except maybe feed into some people's sense of superiority because their parents stayed together. 

[Lockout Casualty]

12 hours ago, riffraff said:

I’m confident you can make a point without coming across like a drama queen.

 

give it a go.

I'd rather wear a tiara and prance around like a queen than pretend the other poster's words were anything but ignorant and despicable. 

[canuckistani]

4 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Sorry, maybe you could expand on this a bit...

 

FGM is a Western phenomena? As I understand it, it's practiced predominantly in Africa. Is that considered the West? Also, although honor killings happen all over the world, they are predominantly an idea with it's roots in Asia, no?

It is a very simple thing. Western people see the 'western world' as Americas + Australia + Western Europe. Rest of the world sees western world as Americas + Australia + entire Europe + Middle East. 

Honor killing is predominantly a western phenomena as outside of this zone, it only really affects the Indian subcontinent but in much, much lower levels than rest of the ME and African parts of the western world. 

FGM is predominantly an Indonesian & western Africa thing and has strong correlation with Islam. 

4 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

I don't disagree that a single parent environment is less than ideal, but I disagree that it's the biggest cultural issue facing "western" civilization. I also disagree that systemic racism doesn't exist.

well, i am in no position to posit which one is the biggest, medium, medium-small and smallest cultural issue facing a particular demographic of people. I am not a social scientist or researcher. I am however, educated in the scientific process/methodology, with keen interest in history. All i can say is, in my view, decisive shifts in behaviour patterns of species homo sapiens must be accorded space and room for analysis, as they represent a fundamental shift in species behavior on an evolutionary timeline. Maybe the impact would be extreme, maybe it would be minimal.

 

All i can say is, one of the decisive shifts in human behavior, that is affecting a minority of human population ( parts of the western world or more clearly, the extreme west of Americas, Australia and western Europe), is the phenomena of single parenthood. At no point in human history was single parenthood a thing. Rise of agriculture lead to rise of nuclear families and the overwhelming majority of people in farming societies, for the last 10-20,000 years, have had the mom + dad model of raising children. Prior to agriculture, when hunter-gatherer mode was the dominant mode of survival, humanity raised children in the 'group raise' environment, where the father played minimal role but the mother had help from several other women in the 'clan/tribe' etc. The last 100 years has, for the first time, seen a significant chunk of humanity (the hundreds of millions who inhabit the 'conventional western world') raising children in a way humanity has never, ever done before - as single parents. This decisive shift, IMO, deserves far more attention and objective study than it has been accorded, because it represents a quantifiable, empiric and decisive change in a fundamental behavior of a species - raising its young. 

My personal speculation is, its effects cannot be understated, as species homo sapiens, like elephants, are not born with innate skills and knowledge like a dog or a cat, but are mostly taught these skills by their parents. 

 

As far as systemic racism - obviously systemic racism exists. Nobody in their right mind could challenge that fact. However, what is most definitely challengable and definitely nonsense, is the concept that systemic racism affects people of various races in predictable, normalized outcomes. Ie, if you are white, you have an advantage period, if you are black, you have a disadvantage period, down to the last man,woman and child. This is false association of majoritarian trend in a sample space population with homogenized individual trend in each and every sample of the sample space analyzed. 

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, Lockout Casualty said:

 

As for declining culture, I am at a loss what to say there. I can raise my children, I can't raise yours or anyone else's. I've seen kids from good families fall victim to drugs and I've seen kids from broken homes avoid them at all costs. If you or Canuckistani have a plan how to deal with changing family dynamic in the modern world, I applaud you and bid you good luck in implementing it. I don't see how pinning things on "culture" does anyone any good, except maybe feed into some people's sense of superiority because their parents stayed together. 

Or, it can be vehicle of fostering change and re-entrenchment of taking marriages and building families more seriously. Maybe it can lessen the sense of ' we don't have fun anymore, so lets divorce' mentality. Maybe it can change the 100% focus on personal fulfillment and look at family as a unit with asymetric but important stakeholders. 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Or, it can be vehicle of fostering change and re-entrenchment of taking marriages and building families more seriously. Maybe it can lessen the sense of ' we don't have fun anymore, so lets divorce' mentality. Maybe it can change the 100% focus on personal fulfillment and look at family as a unit with asymetric but important stakeholders. 

We have developed into a "throw away and replace with new" society. We used to fix stuff, and keep it for ever.  Now, it's toss things to the curb, and get the newer shiny bobble.

Maybe that philosophy has filtered into marriage? 

[Lockout Casualty]

15 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Or, it can be vehicle of fostering change and re-entrenchment of taking marriages and building families more seriously. Maybe it can lessen the sense of ' we don't have fun anymore, so lets divorce' mentality. Maybe it can change the 100% focus on personal fulfillment and look at family as a unit with asymetric but important stakeholders. 

Like I said, if you have a plan to effect this change my support is fully behind you. My parents divorced because my dad wanted a daughter. He was also abusive, drinking, and self-centered. How do you fix that? I am of the opinion that if parents do not want to stay together, they shouldn't stay together. Remaining in an unhealthy relationship teaches a child that it is normal. Whether it's a physically or mentally abusive relationship, an unhappy one, or any mix of these and other aspects. An unhealthy understanding of relationships will do more compound damage through generations than having to raise children alone (and just because parents aren't living together does not mean they are not both involved in raising a child).  

 

Our society is changing, our child rearing is changing. Change is something that humanity has undergone since we climbed down from the trees and ran through the Savannah. Rather than long for the days past, I would rather look forward. Humans are unique among animals in our intellect. There are many things we did as a first. There is no reason to think we can't adjust our social structure to accommodate these changes.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Lockout Casualty

[Lockout Casualty]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We have developed into a "throw away and replace with new" society. We used to fix stuff, and keep it for ever.  Now, it's toss things to the curb, and get the newer shiny bobble.

Maybe that philosophy has filtered into marriage? 

You continue to amaze me with how simplistic your worldview is. 

[canuckistani]

4 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Like I said, if you have a plan to effect this change my support is fully behind you. My parents divorced because my dad wanted a daughter. He was also abusive, drinking, and self-centered. How do you fix that? I am of the opinion that if parents do not want to stay together, they shouldn't stay together. Remaining in an unhealthy relationship teaches a child that it is normal. Whether it's a physically or mentally abusive relationship, an unhappy one, or any mix of these and other aspects. An unhealthy understanding of relationships will do more compound damage through generations than having to raise children alone (and just because parents aren't living together does not mean they are not both involved in raising a child).  

 

Our society is changing, our child rearing is changing. Change is something that humanity has undergone since we climbed down from the trees and ran through the Savannah. Rather than long for the days past, I would rather look forward. Humans are unique among animals in our intellect. There are many things we did as a first. There is no reason to think we can't adjust our social structure to accommodate these changes.

well adults are mostly unfixable but children are like clay- they can be molded much better. The lessons are for the future generations. For the children we bring into the world or raise.

Everything in life is a risk to reward ratio of assessment. This is what makes us gamble, take a risk, stay put, a lion to chase a deer or stay put, etc. While i agree that people who are incompatible and hate each other shouldn't stay together and teaches the children that its okay to accept toxicity, we have to balance that with what @Alflives also pointed out - fostering a 'this isnt fun, i am out' at the drop of a hat, after 6 months of not going out on 'date nights' is equally disastrous in the long term. Kids need to be taught that its okay to not be perfect to each other and making things work between two people who are having difficulties but still care for each other and want the same outcome is a worthwhile persuit. The use-and-throw culture we live in, is a compounding damage equally as bad as putting up with a physically abusive alcoholic lunatic. 

Yes, our society is changing and change is our name. But not all change is good and not all change humanity has fostered is good. This is where the balance of liberalism's desire for change and conservative's desire for status quo comes into play. History is replete with social changes that helped humanity spectacularly as well as doomed a culture spectacularly. So to have blind faith in change and our ability to adjust and thrive no-matter what, is egoistic naivity, not rooted in actual reading of history. 

[Alflives]

20 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

You continue to amaze me with how simplistic your worldview is. 

I rarely get compliments on my intellect, so THANKS!!!

[Lockout Casualty]

7 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

well adults are mostly unfixable but children are like clay- they can be molded much better. The lessons are for the future generations. For the children we bring into the world or raise.

Everything in life is a risk to reward ratio of assessment. This is what makes us gamble, take a risk, stay put, a lion to chase a deer or stay put, etc. While i agree that people who are incompatible and hate each other shouldn't stay together and teaches the children that its okay to accept toxicity, we have to balance that with what @Alflives also pointed out - fostering a 'this isnt fun, i am out' at the drop of a hat, after 6 months of not going out on 'date nights' is equally disastrous in the long term. Kids need to be taught that its okay to not be perfect to each other and making things work between two people who are having difficulties but still care for each other and want the same outcome is a worthwhile persuit. The use-and-throw culture we live in, is a compounding damage equally as bad as putting up with a physically abusive alcoholic lunatic. 

Yes, our society is changing and change is our name. But not all change is good and not all change humanity has fostered is good. This is where the balance of liberalism's desire for change and conservative's desire for status quo comes into play. History is replete with social changes that helped humanity spectacularly as well as doomed a culture spectacularly. So to have blind faith in change and our ability to adjust and thrive no-matter what, is egoistic naivity, not rooted in actual reading of history. 

Who is going to teach these children? Parents in bad relationships? They can only teach how to stay in a bad relationship. Parents in loveless relationships? They can only teach how to stay together for the kids, but not how to be happy. Parents that have split up? They can only show how to leave a bad relationship. So who is going to teach the children of these parents, ones who weren't born into happy, loving families? Their neighbours? Teachers? Are we going to remove children from single parents and give them to happy families to adopt? Like I said, I understand the problem you're presenting, but I'm not seeing any remotely feasible solutions. 

 

Furthermore, equating a family breaking up to getting a new iPhone only exposes a superiority complex. Also, it's incredibly judgmental. For a data guy, I wonder what sample size you're using, n=3? Seriously?

 

Not all change is good, but none of the changes have ever spelled doom of our species, as you seem to be alluding to. There is no balance of liberalism and conservatism. There's the inevitable progress and the kicking and screaming to stay put. Maybe society will make a full circle back to strong family units in a century, maybe we'll go back even further to tribal ways. I don't know. I'm not one for valuing specific cultures over others, I couldn't care less if western culture dies out in the future, or if it dominates the planet. So long as our species prospers. I don't have blind faith in anything but humanity's (not any one culture's) ability to adapt and overcome. 

[canuckistani]

13 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Who is going to teach these children? Parents in bad relationships? They can only teach how to stay in a bad relationship. Parents in loveless relationships? They can only teach how to stay together for the kids, but not how to be happy. Parents that have split up? They can only show how to leave a bad relationship. So who is going to teach the children of these parents, ones who weren't born into happy, loving families? Their neighbours? Teachers? Are we going to remove children from single parents and give them to happy families to adopt? Like I said, I understand the problem you're presenting, but I'm not seeing any remotely feasible solutions. 

You mean to say i am the only human being capable of learning from my mistakes and teaching my kids 'don't do what i did - that was an epic mistake' ?!?

The remedy may not be straightforward, but re-entrenchment of realistic relationship goals, family values, etc. is a social endavor, not just piece-mealed to a particular adult figure in their lives. 

Quote

 

Furthermore, equating a family breaking up to getting a new iPhone only exposes a superiority complex. Also, it's incredibly judgmental. For a data guy, I wonder what sample size you're using, n=3? Seriously?

Who said anything about just family breakups ? I said about all breakups. And you are seriously saying that people who date today, don't breakup (or conversely, come together) over trivial matters that are non-conductive to producing long-term relationships ?!?

Quote

 

Not all change is good, but none of the changes have ever spelled doom of our species, as you seem to be alluding to.

False. There have been several social and technological changes in a society that has doomed said society. Yes, not the species, because prior to 50 years ago, human species was not very interconnected. Which makes the stakes higher today. A crap idea can travel across oceans in minutes and germinate, just like a good one can. 
Ergo, doomed ideas in the past that doomed a particular civilization or all within its reach, has a much wider scope of impact in the interconnected world today. 

Quote

There is no balance of liberalism and conservatism. There's the inevitable progress and the kicking and screaming to stay put. Maybe society will make a full circle back to strong family units in a century, maybe we'll go back even further to tribal ways. I don't know. I'm not one for valuing specific cultures over others, I couldn't care less if western culture dies out in the future, or if it dominates the planet. So long as our species prospers. I don't have blind faith in anything but humanity's (not any one culture's) ability to adapt and overcome. 

There is always a balance of liberalism and conservatism that plays out in every single social change scenario. Right now there are liberals who advocate ' you can be any gender you choose' and conservatives who advocate 'BS, you are what you are'. That is the push-pull of liberalism vis a vis conservatism. Progress is inevitable in technological realms, but equating social change as progress is a value judgement that is not always clear-cut. Is it progress to have more broken families than 100 years ago or is it regress ? most would classify it as regress. 

 

The overwhelming majority of people are not interested in being first at test-driving anything- be it trip to mars, a new type of car, new vaccine, new social order, etc etc. Because we are ultimately animals and like all animals, our PRIME GOAL is to survive and propagate ourselves. This leads to the natural balance of ' sounds about right, but risky - you do it, if it works out for you, i will follow' mentality.  This 'you first to the new tech/paradigm' is a hallmark, dominant feature of species homo sapiens that most of us conform to, in most scenarios. 

 

And yes, you hit the nail on the head - you have blind faith. I don't. you have blind faith in our ability to adapt and overcome nomatter what, i don't have such faith, because i know from history that there have been several societies that doomed itself with technological or social change they were not ready for. The scope was smaller due to isolation of humanity due to distances & travel technologies, but that is no longer the case. Ergo, if anything, history of human success and failure suggests that we are in a much more high risk/high reward scenario with human future than ever before. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by canuckistani

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

It is a very simple thing. Western people see the 'western world' as Americas + Australia + Western Europe. Rest of the world sees western world as Americas + Australia + entire Europe + Middle East. 

Honor killing is predominantly a western phenomena as outside of this zone, it only really affects the Indian subcontinent but in much, much lower levels than rest of the ME and African parts of the western world. 

FGM is predominantly an Indonesian & western Africa thing and has strong correlation with Islam. 

well, i am in no position to posit which one is the biggest, medium, medium-small and smallest cultural issue facing a particular demographic of people. I am not a social scientist or researcher. I am however, educated in the scientific process/methodology, with keen interest in history. All i can say is, in my view, decisive shifts in behaviour patterns of species homo sapiens must be accorded space and room for analysis, as they represent a fundamental shift in species behavior on an evolutionary timeline. Maybe the impact would be extreme, maybe it would be minimal.

 

All i can say is, one of the decisive shifts in human behavior, that is affecting a minority of human population ( parts of the western world or more clearly, the extreme west of Americas, Australia and western Europe), is the phenomena of single parenthood. At no point in human history was single parenthood a thing. Rise of agriculture lead to rise of nuclear families and the overwhelming majority of people in farming societies, for the last 10-20,000 years, have had the mom + dad model of raising children. Prior to agriculture, when hunter-gatherer mode was the dominant mode of survival, humanity raised children in the 'group raise' environment, where the father played minimal role but the mother had help from several other women in the 'clan/tribe' etc. The last 100 years has, for the first time, seen a significant chunk of humanity (the hundreds of millions who inhabit the 'conventional western world') raising children in a way humanity has never, ever done before - as single parents. This decisive shift, IMO, deserves far more attention and objective study than it has been accorded, because it represents a quantifiable, empiric and decisive change in a fundamental behavior of a species - raising its young. 

My personal speculation is, its effects cannot be understated, as species homo sapiens, like elephants, are not born with innate skills and knowledge like a dog or a cat, but are mostly taught these skills by their parents. 

 

As far as systemic racism - obviously systemic racism exists. Nobody in their right mind could challenge that fact. However, what is most definitely challengable and definitely nonsense, is the concept that systemic racism affects people of various races in predictable, normalized outcomes. Ie, if you are white, you have an advantage period, if you are black, you have a disadvantage period, down to the last man,woman and child. This is false association of majoritarian trend in a sample space population with homogenized individual trend in each and every sample of the sample space analyzed. 

Maybe that's how some people define it, but I think you'll have a tough time convincing most people that the Middle East is actually the west....

 

lets just say that things like FGM and honor killings are not common in Christian majority countries.

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Maybe that's how some people define it, but I think you'll have a tough time convincing most people that the Middle East is actually the west....

Most people in the world see it as Middle East = the western world.  Europeans & the Americas are still a minority of the world populace. Almost everyone in Asia sees ME as the eastern-most of the western world, many in Africa see it as such too. They outnumber the ones who don't pretty handily.

Quote

lets just say that things like FGM and honor killings are not common in Christian majority countries.

Yep. That is true. Though honor killing is endemic to Christian majority Ethiopia and parts of eastern europe its known to happen as well. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by canuckistani

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Most people in the world see it as Middle East = the western world.  Europeans & the Americas are still a minority of the world populace. Almost everyone in Asia sees ME as the eastern-most of the western world, many in Africa see it as such too. They outnumber the ones who don't pretty handily.

Yep. That is true. Though honor killing is endemic to Christian majority Ethiopia and parts of eastern europe its known to happen as well. 

Well if that's what China and India think, the rest of us are pretty much outnumbered. My take (and I believe most in this forum) have always seen the "east" in middle east as significant.

 

In any event, I think we know where each other stand on the issue.

[canuckistani]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

Well if that's what China and India think, the rest of us are pretty much outnumbered. My take (and I believe most in this forum) have always seen the "east" in middle east as significant.

 

In any event, I think we know where each other stand on the issue.

Yes. 

But from a cultural paradigm, ME is still very much western culture. The entire basis of western culture is from the middle eastern ethics of 'good vs bad', 'godly vs satan-ly' etc etc.

This is why i classify the ME as the west, because its ethics system is the absolutist good vs bad ethic system of the west, not the relativistic balance-oriented ethic system of the east. 

[Lockout Casualty]

12 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You mean to say i am the only human being capable of learning from my mistakes and teaching my kids 'don't do what i did - that was an epic mistake' ?!?

The remedy may not be straightforward, but re-entrenchment of realistic relationship goals, family values, etc. is a social endavor, not just piece-mealed to a particular adult figure in their lives. 

Who said anything about just family breakups ? I said about all breakups. And you are seriously saying that people who date today, don't breakup (or conversely, come together) over trivial matters that are non-conductive to producing long-term relationships ?!?

False. There have been several social and technological changes in a society that has doomed said society. Yes, not the species, because prior to 50 years ago, human species was not very interconnected. Which makes the stakes higher today. A crap idea can travel across oceans in minutes and germinate, just like a good one can. 
Ergo, doomed ideas in the past that doomed a particular civilization or all within its reach, has a much wider scope of impact in the interconnected world today. 

There is always a balance of liberalism and conservatism that plays out in every single social change scenario. Right now there are liberals who advocate ' you can be any gender you choose' and conservatives who advocate 'BS, you are what you are'. That is the push-pull of liberalism vis a vis conservatism. Progress is inevitable in technological realms, but equating social change as progress is a value judgement that is not always clear-cut. Is it progress to have more broken families than 100 years ago or is it regress ? most would classify it as regress. 

 

The overwhelming majority of people are not interested in being first at test-driving anything- be it trip to mars, a new type of car, new vaccine, new social order, etc etc. Because we are ultimately animals and like all animals, our PRIME GOAL is to survive and propagate ourselves. This leads to the natural balance of ' sounds about right, but risky - you do it, if it works out for you, i will follow' mentality.  This 'you first to the new tech/paradigm' is a hallmark, dominant feature of species homo sapiens that most of us conform to, in most scenarios. 

 

And yes, you hit the nail on the head - you have blind faith. I don't. you have blind faith in our ability to adapt and overcome nomatter what, i don't have such faith, because i know from history that there have been several societies that doomed itself with technological or social change they were not ready for. The scope was smaller due to isolation of humanity due to distances & travel technologies, but that is no longer the case. Ergo, if anything, history of human success and failure suggests that we are in a much more high risk/high reward scenario with human future than ever before. 

No, that is not what I mean. I'm saying that if people were to learn and pass on the lessons you so want them to, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reality is that people move forward with their lives and adapt to their circumstances, and in the process teach their kids to do the same. If they come to realize they shouldn't have split, or that being together is more important than whatever it was pushing them apart, they will teach their kids as much. If they don't, they won't. I don't know what panacea you're imagining that will usher such a cultural change, but I don't see it. Maybe government push to promote family unity via tax breaks? Educational programming for young families? I haven't heard a single suggestion while we've been debating.

 

I'm sorry if I was mistaken, but I thought we were discussing family unity, not how people go about finding a partner in the first place. I don't have any issues with people going through relationships until they find one they can stay with long term. Not every relationship has to culminate in a child and growing old together. Are you saying people shouldn't be so promiscuous? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. This is nothing new in human society, people engaged in relationships and broke them before today's "throw-away culture". More, I'm not really sure what goal you're trying to assign families. What issue are you attempting to solve by reinforcing family unity? What, ultimately is better about being together than not? Western society has a culture you look down on, but it has also become the wealthiest, strongest, innovative. I don't know what culture you're from and frankly I don't care, but don't pretend that your culture is somehow superior to western because families stay together.

 

It's a fair point to suggest that our inter-connectivity raises the stakes, but due to cultural differences and priorities, I still don't see it all that likely that a new technology will doom or species. Not that it's impossible, I just don't think it's likely. 

 

I also agree with you that not all social change can be considered progress, but perhaps that's the wrong word. I think sticking with "change" is adequate for our discussion. As such, I wouldn't say than broken families is regress, but change in family structure. There are benefits to family unity, but not to the point that I would suggest our society is regressing. It's just changing. And we're adapting to account for these changes. As you said earlier, single parents are being stretched too thin is a consequence of this change. This is why we should be implementing cheap childcare, social programs, etc. Ultimately, I wouldn't say one family structure is always better than the other. All things being equal, I don't see our species dying out because our family unit changed to predominately single parents.

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Lockout Casualty said:

No, that is not what I mean. I'm saying that if people were to learn and pass on the lessons you so want them to, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reality is that people move forward with their lives and adapt to their circumstances, and in the process teach their kids to do the same. If they come to realize they shouldn't have split, or that being together is more important than whatever it was pushing them apart, they will teach their kids as much. If they don't, they won't. I don't know what panacea you're imagining that will usher such a cultural change, but I don't see it. Maybe government push to promote family unity via tax breaks? Educational programming for young families? I haven't heard a single suggestion while we've been debating.

Yes, those would be a good start IMO. Just like we are teaching kids to explore their identities and such, we should also be teaching the kids that its a worthwhile persuit to want long term relationships with realistic goals and its positives on raising children. 

1 minute ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I'm sorry if I was mistaken, but I thought we were discussing family unity, not how people go about finding a partner in the first place. I don't have any issues with people going through relationships until they find one they can stay with long term. Not every relationship has to culminate in a child and growing old together. Are you saying people shouldn't be so promiscuous? I'm not really sure what you're getting at. This is nothing new in human society, people engaged in relationships and broke them before today's "throw-away culture".

I am not saying anything against promiscuity or going through relationships till you find one that works. I am however, saying that today's society of relationships have become far more self-centered than in the past ( or in any other human society), where the 'what do i get out of this' is the end-all, be-all of relationships rather than ' whats in it for me, her and the kids in the future maybe?'. I am also saying that this whole era of 'we are breaking up after 4 years because for the last 5 months we havn't had much fun, we didn't go out much for date nights' etc is a devaluation of relationship goals and its reflective in our society. 

1 minute ago, Lockout Casualty said:

More, I'm not really sure what goal you're trying to assign families. What issue are you attempting to solve by reinforcing family unity? What, ultimately is better about being together than not? Western society has a culture you look down on, but it has also become the wealthiest, strongest, innovative. I don't know what culture you're from and frankly I don't care, but don't pretend that your culture is somehow superior to western because families stay together.

What am i trying to assign to families ? The simple fact that single parenthood fails in every measurable benchmark towards welfare - material & emotional- of the children raised in it. This is widely documented and evidenced. Families staying together has a decisive positive effect on the children of the families. 

 

What is ironic, is that the western culture became the strongest, wealthiest and most innovative on the back of strong family values and strong, almost ruthless meritocratic ideals - all ideals that are eroding over the past few decades. The saying 'Rome wasn't built in a day' also has a corollary - Rome wasn't destroyed in a day either. Societies, barring natural calamities or epidemics, don't just collapse into a heap overnight or over one generation due to bad choices too. Success is like motion - even after you stop being successful, the inertia of success still leads to more success. But trouble is, without acceleration ( ie, continuous re-enforcement), inertia eventually comes to a stop and as is often with the case, rolls back. 

This has already happened to many societies, including western society, in the past. I think we are going through a phase where the strong core of our social structure is being hollowed out and right now, we are existing on pure inertia of our past success. But that momentum, is fast running out. 

 

1 minute ago, Lockout Casualty said:

It's a fair point to suggest that our inter-connectivity raises the stakes, but due to cultural differences and priorities, I still don't see it all that likely that a new technology will doom or species. Not that it's impossible, I just don't think it's likely. 

New technology may not. But new social paradigms may do it. As i said, social collapse is not just a question of technological conflict, it also has elements of social change leading to social collapse. The book 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond touches on this topically, for eg. 

1 minute ago, Lockout Casualty said:

 

I also agree with you that not all social change can be considered progress, but perhaps that's the wrong word. I think sticking with "change" is adequate for our discussion. As such, I wouldn't say than broken families is regress, but change in family structure.

If there is empiric evidence that children from broken families have lower success in education, financial freedom and access, then it is empiric fact to say that it is a regress, not progress. 

1 minute ago, Lockout Casualty said:

There are benefits to family unity, but not to the point that I would suggest our society is regressing. It's just changing. And we're adapting to account for these changes. As you said earlier, single parents are being stretched too thin is a consequence of this change. This is why we should be implementing cheap childcare, social programs, etc. Ultimately, I wouldn't say one family structure is always better than the other. All things being equal, I don't see our species dying out because our family unit changed to predominately single parents.

I am interested to know, why cheap childcare or social programs are of a higher priority than just re-entrenching what works and has worked for humanity for the last 10,000 years and is still working - family values. Why wouldn't we want school curriculums to re-enforce family values, the objectives of long term partnerships and the benefits towards children from it ?? 

 

All things being equal, how a species raises its children is of fundamental impact to a species, from an objective,biological & evolutionary perspective. In short, it is messing with the species on the most basic level. Other species have shown tremendous change - mostly negative - when their child rearing strategies are messed with or changed radically ( mostly due to human interference or controlled experiments). Just because we are the most adaptive species and most resilient one on this planet, doesn't make us impervious to the risks - most resilient, most adaptive does not equate to absolute adaptability and absolute resiliency. We are not Tardigardes, for example and we never will be. 

[Lockout Casualty]

40 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Yes, those would be a good start IMO. Just like we are teaching kids to explore their identities and such, we should also be teaching the kids that its a worthwhile persuit to want long term relationships with realistic goals and its positives on raising children. 

I am not saying anything against promiscuity or going through relationships till you find one that works. I am however, saying that today's society of relationships have become far more self-centered than in the past ( or in any other human society), where the 'what do i get out of this' is the end-all, be-all of relationships rather than ' whats in it for me, her and the kids in the future maybe?'. I am also saying that this whole era of 'we are breaking up after 4 years because for the last 5 months we havn't had much fun, we didn't go out much for date nights' etc is a devaluation of relationship goals and its reflective in our society. 

What am i trying to assign to families ? The simple fact that single parenthood fails in every measurable benchmark towards welfare - material & emotional- of the children raised in it. This is widely documented and evidenced. Families staying together has a decisive positive effect on the children of the families. 

 

What is ironic, is that the western culture became the strongest, wealthiest and most innovative on the back of strong family values and strong, almost ruthless meritocratic ideals - all ideals that are eroding over the past few decades. The saying 'Rome wasn't built in a day' also has a corollary - Rome wasn't destroyed in a day either. Societies, barring natural calamities or epidemics, don't just collapse into a heap overnight or over one generation due to bad choices too. Success is like motion - even after you stop being successful, the inertia of success still leads to more success. But trouble is, without acceleration ( ie, continuous re-enforcement), inertia eventually comes to a stop and as is often with the case, rolls back. 

This has already happened to many societies, including western society, in the past. I think we are going through a phase where the strong core of our social structure is being hollowed out and right now, we are existing on pure inertia of our past success. But that momentum, is fast running out. 

 

New technology may not. But new social paradigms may do it. As i said, social collapse is not just a question of technological conflict, it also has elements of social change leading to social collapse. The book 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond touches on this topically, for eg. 

If there is empiric evidence that children from broken families have lower success in education, financial freedom and access, then it is empiric fact to say that it is a regress, not progress. 

I am interested to know, why cheap childcare or social programs are of a higher priority than just re-entrenching what works and has worked for humanity for the last 10,000 years and is still working - family values. Why wouldn't we want school curriculums to re-enforce family values, the objectives of long term partnerships and the benefits towards children from it ?? 

 

All things being equal, how a species raises its children is of fundamental impact to a species, from an objective,biological & evolutionary perspective. In short, it is messing with the species on the most basic level. Other species have shown tremendous change - mostly negative - when their child rearing strategies are messed with or changed radically ( mostly due to human interference or controlled experiments). Just because we are the most adaptive species and most resilient one on this planet, doesn't make us impervious to the risks - most resilient, most adaptive does not equate to absolute adaptability and absolute resiliency. We are not Tardigardes, for example and we never will be. 

I'll preface this post by saying that I won't be replying as thoroughly, if at all going forward, as I've spent all morning and afternoon on CDC, thinking through your and my own posts. And I'm grateful for the exchange. Just time to focus on my daughter.

 

In my experience, people in long term relationships don't tend to break up lightly. I don't know the inner workings of these people's relations, but so far as my anecdotal evidence has led me to believe, it's because they stop fighting against the current. Meaning that they've struggled to be together for a long time already, and finally recognize that their relationship is doomed. Typically, these relationships, ones that last for years before dying, start when people are young. People grow and become different people, I don't think it's healthy to stay together when both have grown into people neither wants to be with. I think you're over-simplifying why people break up after years together, almost to the point of devaluing these people's individuality and feelings. 

 

You're right that single parenthood does worse than the united family in ensuring a child's success, but I would question the why. Being a relatively recent trend, possibly our society hasn't adjusted yet to the new paradigm. Possibly the effects of this multi-generational change haven't cascaded down yet. As well, as you said to Rup earlier regarding institutional racism, one cannot unequivocally say, based of family structure alone who will fail and who will succeed. To me, painting all with this brush is premature.

 

What I don't see is our society collapsing. You see the core as being hollowed out, whereas I see it as changing into something else. I don't know if ultimately you or I will be correct, and I don't think either of us will live long enough to know. I have divorced friends who are both heavily involved in the child's life and ones whose parents are together but neither really takes an interest. I think it ultimately falls to parents as individuals in how successful their child will become. 

 

I wouldn't say social programs are of higher priority to me, rather they are the means to alleviate the pressure on single parents today and to aid in their children's development and future success. It is an immediate action that can foster more desired outcomes. Ultimately, both are a means to an end - having children grow into successful adults. I am entirely unopposed to a combination of the two approaches. 

 

Lastly, I feel a lot of your concerns regarding collapse will be put to rest once we become a space faring species. We could think of all sorts of ways to break and fix our societies on Earth, and all it will take is one space rock big enough and it will all be for naught. 

 

Cheers to a good talk. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Lockout Casualty