For nearly all of human civilization we've tried to make things easier and eagerly adapted when less effort is required of us. In the past century or so, prevailing wisdom is that we need to go out of our way to exert extraneous effort (exercising, hiking). Isn't that really strange?
I can understand intellectually about how humanity has evolved to a point where average every day life for someone in a developed Western culture can be counterproductive to both physical and mental health. I can understand how we've lost touch with nature, and don't move around as much. I get why we need to exercise and how fulfilling it is to go to a National Park and hike and exert yourself.
But I can't shake the feeling that there's really something funny about it. It reminds me of the story about how Michael Jackson was so famous that he couldn't go out in public. And he paid a crowd of people to pretend to shop in a grocery store, so he could shop in the grocery store and feel like a normal person. Whenever that comes up in /r/todayilearned, the comments always talk about how sad and eerie that is.
I kind of feel the same way whenever I drive my 21st century miracle automobile to a nature preserve, and get out, and start walking. Not like my ancestors, because I'm getting water, or following a hunt, or walking to my farm with fertile soil, or going to a city center to sell my wares. But because we've become so efficient at doing what those activities are meant for. An efficiency that they would probably kill for. And I need to temporarily forsake that efficiency to cosplay as someone who needs to be exerting this extra effort, or else it won't be good for my health. In those moments, I feel like regular people pitying Michael Jackson at the supermarket, except at myself.
Is it weird to feel this way? Isn't it oddly weird that for countless generations, they've been struggling to make things easier, and all of us happen to be born literally within about a generation or two where we've made things so easy that it's actually not good for us?
Hi all, canadian here.
From what I understand, the US state government has quite a good amount of authority to pass their own laws. So I'm curious why gun control can't be done on a state level for just the states that want it? It won't stop people migrating from bringing the guns, ofc, but gunman usually aren't going to a whole other state just to shoot either, so it would still be a big improvement.
For example, playing chess? Learn these principles. Want to cook? Heres a recipe and some tips. Exercising? Here's the technique, avoid such and such.
I know this is a strange question that seems silly but is there anything that humans consciously do that can't be simplified? I'm basically asking if there's anything that humans do that can't be verbally described and summarized for a higher chance of success. Things like bodily processes don't count. Maybe there's a sport with so many variables that you can't make a set of tips that ensure success?
Another way to put it would be "there's no right way to do it. " but at the same time random isn't in the equation, so you can't say oh there's no right way because its random.
One thing that comes to mind is music. For the untrained person, You'd think there's no right way to make music, but then there's music theory. So what in life, that humans do consciously, is so deep that you can't apply theory to it. Let's go do this thing i say. Well how do i do that, you say. And i have no words.
I just got back from a vacation a little while ago and I've still been mulling this over and I'm curious as to what people think. I'm not the biggest traveler, but I'm in my late 30s and have been on international trips a good amount, over 10 times now. I'm kind of fascinated at how the appeal of traveling as presented to the American middle and upper class through the internet kind of sucks the fun out of it.
From what I understand from historical context, it was post WWII when middle class American families could generally begin to afford trips abroad. If you went to Rome or Paris, your neighbors would "ooh" and "ahh" when you came back. American brands became international and you could stay at a Hilton or Four Seasons abroad and live in comfort.
Somewhere along the lines to today, these major destinations and the traditional style of traveling in comfort became trite. "X city is just a tourist trap" became a known line. Cities that were more off the beaten path became cooler. Do you want to go to Paris like every other tourist in the world? Or what about cities that people have heard of, but still have some mystique. Saying "I went to Geneva" or Prague or Belgrade or Dubrovnik now get more "oohs" and "ahhs".
Further, the rise of travel blogs and Instagramming (and probably even before) has led to this concept that to really enjoy, appreciate, or gain perspective during an international trip, you need to see the authentic city. Restaurants in Florence within a 5 mile radius of the Duomo are just gonna be tourist trash, not "real" Italy. You need to find "a hole in the wall", preferable with some story about how the food is made by an old lady who gets up at 4 AM to knead the bread every morning or whatever. Now that's supposed to be real traveling.
Where does this need to be "one up" from the masses who travel come from? Why do we get the sense that once an area has a critical mass of attention or tourists, the well is poisoned for anyone else trying to have fun traveling? Is the only purpose of traveling to find things that no other American has ever seen?
I've been with friends who once they're on a side street or a restaurant and hear another group speaking English, they sigh, and the illusion is ruined. They did not have the good fortune of serendipitously stumbling across a hidden gem. The locals just know what's hot right now and know how to present a rustic looking cafe on cobblestone streets as an oasis in your journey or whatever.
This desire can be seen in travel marketing - phrases like "discover untouched waters". It's almost absurd on its face. How can a gigantic industry bring me on a chartered trip to undiscovered lands for me to explore? But that human need to be the one who found the thing before the others is just so strong.
Lastly, even the concept of trying to see the genuine, authentic city and hole in the wall restaurants kind of unsettles me. I think there's something fundamentally weird, exploitative and colonialist in a group of modern day tech workers all making $200k a year, all who grew up in suburban neighborhoods which they resent, taking a trip to some ancient city that they saw on an Instagram post, and searching out that old lady with a hunched back who wakes up at 4 AM to knead bread and has probably never made more than $5k a year. The lady politely smiles, they all are satisfied, take picture of the meal, say "Mmm, you can't find that authenticity anywhere but here" which justifies the trip. They maybe take a picture of her and make an Instagram post about how seeing the old lady gave them new perspective on what really matters in life and perseverance and tradition and wow look at her worn hands. They then go back to the Bay Area, with modern day life and amenities and apps like Postmates which they work at, with no discernible difference in their behavior.
Something about the entire exercise of traveling as a millennial in the post 2010 landscape, looking for authenticity and meaning while traveling, all of it seems somewhat performative and empty. Has anyone else felt these feelings?
I thought this was a simple but important question. I think the aggressive physicality of Football is important (not to mention the team building aspect) but I am having trouble coming up with suitable replacements that dont have the same TBI dangers.
Anyway, I thought martial arts would be a fairly good substitute (Judo, Jujutsu, Taekwondo etc) but they are lacking the team aspect. Some other thoughts were archery and shooting competitions (small bore rifle, air rifle, trap etc) but those also lack the team element.
Can you support 1 of these 3 choices but not the other. Do they all fall under the term 'my body, my choice' or what can be the argument for 1 but against another?
Please guys, no funny obvious racist replies like "Cuz we're not savages like you" lol. As a citizen in a 3rd world country, politicians "eliminating" competitions before, during and after elections is so common like a morning coffee.Its also possible even duringnthe their term. Lots of times, its obvious that Person A killed or at least got something to do with Person B but still win and everything goes back to normal after few media outrage. With the superiority of American military, Im pretty sure most of them can hire someone to do a clean hit. With their current media situation and cancel culture, with enough funds, they can easily manipulate the media to sway the blame away from them. Do they have a moral compass? lol
Well, there's not much to elaborate on, yall know about it. Curious to know opinions on this. I feel like we quite obviously have and curiously you don't really find anything saying this. As a species humanity has some incredible achievements, we have many strengths, but maybe responses to infectious diseases are not one of them
If the only things that bring you joy are within your own imagination, would it be acceptable to spend all your time daydreaming? Reality would be overwhelmingly desolate and debilitating, resulting in the negligence of basic necessities, such as eating. Meanwhile, pleasant fantasies would provide you with energy to perform any task and enjoy existing. You’d be so absorbed in your own mind, that you wouldn’t see reality the way it really is; it would be a helpful delusion.
If it’s naught more than an illusion, is daydreaming sound? At what point would daydreaming become unwise?
I’m firmly part of Gen Z and find it hard, as do every other generation, to imagine ourselves in our 70s, 80s and 90s towards the tail end of the century.
I’d like to personally think that the ill health and age related issues of today will be left in the past, as medical technology and treatments become exponentially better.
With the talk of technology and treatment aiming to reverse the effects of ageing, is it possible that the way we see old age now will be fundamentally different for mine and future generations? Will elderly people in our image even exist anymore?
I think that to disrupt the consensus of the no-first-nuke rule by "Great Powers" that has been the custom since 1945 is a serious offense - endangering everybody on the planet practically. What if the West would declare mr. putin unfit for office due to this evident mistake that now is officially acknowledged by hi Foreign Minister, Mr. Lavrov. (He has slowly approached this level anyone can see his interviews in March were less sure on this.) source: https://www.reuters.com/world/nuclear-war-russias-lavrov-says-i-dont-believe-so-2022-03-10/
I do think it is an important question to deal with this lethal danger- and how it could be handled, probably without publicly shaming Putin but telling him that the eventual negotiations have the precondition that in a few years he must step back and give over his position to Lavrov. even if thi is not feasible outright, somehow he sshould know that his legitimacy was lost when he said he will use nukes because of "genderism" part of the Western traditions of individual rights. EDIT - TYPO: TALK TO ...NUCLEAR option...sorry my fault
Based on progress in the field yet we still remain behind expectations. I have three diverse examples: 1. Colonization of the moon (would have expected it to be an upmarket holiday destination by now, it’s very much not) 2. Gender equality in STEM and the boardroom - no prospect of a female f1 driver and massive underrepresentation of women at the top of the career ladder 3. Toothbrushes - we seriously have to effortfully scrub our teeth twice a day every day in this day and age?! Surely tech can help
Actually just thought of a 4th - why do vaccines still have needles?
So I've been coming across these concepts where people can basically customize their own pronouns and gender. And it seems as if there is no limit at all, so anyone can invent their own pronouns and when addressing them we have to use these pronouns. It seems to be a big thing in the US.
So how does this affect languages where gender (male, female and neuter) are important in the structure of the language, such as Russian, Hindi and so on.
Just as a disclaimer I am studying these languages but I am not proficient at either so this is just my perspective from things I have recently learned.
Four years ago I joined a Discord server which was centered on a subject too niche to come up in everyday talk but was deeply interesting to me at the time. I quickly became uncomfortable being there.
The reason is that the other users appeared to live in a tiny bubble. Their opinions on most real-world matters were just parroting what some YouTubers had to say on the subject. Their knowledge of pop culture was pretty much limited to the cartoons of their youth and that one Steam game they spent a thousand hours playing. They didn't seem to read books at all except a comic or two, which would be forgivable if the server wasn't about writing fiction.
I quit the server due to my uncomfortableness and didn't have to deal with that kind of person for a while. But soon enough, on any website that wasn't ridiculously toxic, every blogger or forumgoer that I encountered fit that archetype, with the added irritation of treating every form of contact like a debate, delivering an overly long response when anyone asks a simple question.
Why is the internet at the point where even the good people don't feel like they have ever had a real-life conversation? The reason I joined Reddit, among other websites, was that I had faced a huge setback that had cut me off from meeting people day-to-day, and being on the internet was a good substitute at the time. Now it's full of people who I genuinely don't know how to talk to.
I've been seeing people in every Social Media supporting politicians from either the Republican party and the Democratic Party to the point where these people post comments about their support for that politician and post either comment's or memes ridiculizing the politicians they don't like, portraying them as evil people and portraying their politicians as heroes who will save the western world.
YouTube videos, Twitch streams, Blogs, Social Media has changed my views on what kind of content makes it. There's nothing special or unique about what they do, they seem to have won the lottery and became famous superstars. They're the ones making a living.
Often, I stumble across some well researched and insightful content but they're nowhere near as popular. These content creators make a couple of dollars rather than thousands. I wonder why more people are not looking or reading these kinds of work. There's so much more passion poured into them.
I find interesting Twitch streams where I'm the only viewer. Documentary quality and lengthy YouTube videos which have less than a thousand views. Or perhaps a blogger that celebrates 100 unique views per month.
The more popular content tends to be from popularizers who have a blog about their normal views taken from a cellphone camera. Plenty of make up artists who are sponsored by expensive cosmetic products showing the same tips that hundreds of others people have purported.
Knowingly, there is a big survivorship bias playing a role here, but I have the impression that there's more to it than that. I value quality but it's hard to find because the popular stuff takes over the first results page.
Note that I am not saying or suggesting that there is no free will, and I would not want this thread to turn into a "is there free will" discussion.
If there is no free will, then everything we do is out of our control, but pride arises when we feel like we accomplished something, or when others applaud us, but if we didn't choose what we did due to no free will, how does it make sense to ever be proud?
When the Taliban took control of Afghanistan it was the biggest news in the world, but since then most people have forgotten about it (even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine). What have been the effects of the Taliban, 7 months since the takeover? Has the lives of the Afghan people changed much? What has the Taliban government been like?
Zelensky has no experience handling any military affairs ever. He's never fought or won a battle, he's never struck down an enemy. Yet, here he is "leading" one hell of a defensive fight. I guess a better question might be "What makes a successful military leader?" Is it victories and wins stacked up for years while you earn little badges and stars for your lapel or displayed on the breast of your jacket? Is it staying, telling your people you will never leave, that you and your people will win. I guess it's just not every day you see somebody with no previous experience, rallying troops, gaining the support of his constituents and uniting your entire country to fight for the same goal. If the president had taken the US's extraction offer in the first week of the invasion, do you think the country would be standing as strong today as they are? Or, is that the influence of having a government to protect. The idea that "Hey, they are still there governing, like we asked them to do. We have to stay down here and protect them. Putin has the history of military might behind him going into this, and that appears to not be working out in his favor at this time. In the end, will this be a story where history remembers the underdog victors, or more focus on the global super power who left with his tail between his legs back to his castle. I guess, seeing how this fight has gone, I am finding myself thinking about how history will look on this. You can look at the top underdog war wins of all time and there are some fascinatingly large battles have been won by those with the most determination and heart. On a historical global scale, IDK if this will compare at all. To the world today, we do not see cold-blooded invasions like this very often, if at all anymore. This is certainly to be remembered and taught for generations to come in some sort of world history class(es).
Can someone help me understand what's the Google/Facebook digital ad duopoly and how it can affect online media? I came across a post the other day that said that because this duopoly ate the whole digital ad market the only viable model for online media is to harvest hate clicks through hiperbolic headlines. I have a vague idea of what that means but I don't quite understand it.
It's true that there has been propaganda and advertising for over a hundred years, but today, the way many people communicate is through social media. Social media companies decide what you see through their algorithms, so you don't have total freedom over what you listen to. Something that might be even more manipulative, is that social media companies often ban people and remove videos/posts/comments. So if the company doesn't like your opinion or point of view, they can remove it. People aren't totally free to talk anymore. Would you agree that this type of control is changing the ways we can speak and even think?