Individualism is stupid

[Dismal purple]

Your 'seed and feed' idea that you've broached before is nothing more than systematic genocide and annihilation, NOT uplifting anyone into anything.

Who cares about the ego?

Man, the original post is so lacking of context that the replies are all over the place. If you care about others, then study psychology and read the studies about personality groups (like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), just to understand how lots of people find tiring to be concerned about what others think all the time, and being forced to do so can even make them feel overwhelmed (and that's not a psychological illness)

Myers-Briggs is unscientific for your information.

 

[Dismal purple]

If you want to understand why I hate individualism it's because I live in Sweden which is perhaps the most individualistic country on the planet. I am currently alone in an apartment and I haven't talked to another human in days. Back when I was a NEET it could be weeks and sometimes months. Several of my family members live in this city but in their own apartments, they are also alone most of the day. Why? Because this is the norm here. The only escape from loneliness in this society is marriage or death.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

*The mother of all snips*

We can digitise a loose approximation of human sight straight into your brain from a special camera and a backpack worn computer unit *now*. What? You don't think we'll expand on technology like this? We won't take it further? We've been heading down this path since Cochlear implants and Soviet era scientists looking into myoelectrics, and the progress we've made tells me that it's a matter of a few centuries before people start asking the question; "Shouldn't we simply end all pain?"

Actually, I'm convinced that within the next 2 centuries humanity will be extinct through a combination of stupidity, pollution, climate change, drug immune epidemics and resource depletion. And I most certainly do not mean humanity is gone because it has evolved/been upgraded/altered. I mean extinct as surely as if a moon-sized asteroid plowed into the planet tomorrow, extinct. From my perspective, all of the technological "what ifs" are nothing more than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

As I said. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Regardless of how it turns out, neither of us are going to be here to gloat about it, anyway.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Your 'seed and feed' idea that you've broached before is nothing more than systematic genocide and annihilation, NOT uplifting anyone into anything.

Who cares about the ego?

My Id and my ego do. It's the only thing they really agree on.

 

[Dismal purple]

Your 'seed and feed' idea that you've broached before is nothing more than systematic genocide and annihilation, NOT uplifting anyone into anything.

Who cares about the ego?

My Id and my ego do. It's the only thing they really agree on.

Why do YOU care about your ego? I mean on an intellectual level.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Why do YOU care about your ego? I mean on an intellectual level.

I exist. I am aware of my own consciousness. Even if only for the presence of the survival instinct, I want to keep on existing. Intellectually, I know that one day I will die. However, until that moment comes I intend to actually live and have my consciousness continue. When it ends, I have ended and oblivion will be the result. That really is all there is to it.

EDIT: If my consciousness were 'uploaded' into a computer, then I would still be dead and fall into oblivion because "I" would not be in the computer, a copy of me would. That copy might be perfectly happy to be there, but that copy is not me.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Myers-Briggs is unscientific for your information.

Very unscientific. So much so actual psychologists scoff and point to things like Eysenck Personality Inventory, Oxford Happiness Scale, and more. And even then those are used most to chart things like Pearson's CC prevalence of extroverts being happier people and charting how personalities and happiness of various demographics change.

Actually, I'm convinced that within the next 2 centuries humanity will be extinct through a combination of stupidity, pollution, climate change, drug immune epidemics and resource depletion. And I most certainly do not mean humanity is gone because it has evolved/been upgraded/altered. I mean extinct as surely as if a moon-sized asteroid plowed into the planet tomorrow, extinct. From my perspective, all of the technological "what ifs" are nothing more than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

So an argument based on known scientific quantities, things we have examples of now, is trumped by a speculative argument of extinction by superbugs in a century or two?

You're right. We're not going to convince eachother.

 

[Dismal purple]

Why do YOU care about your ego? I mean on an intellectual level.

I exist. I am aware of my own consciousness. Even if only for the presence of the survival instinct, I want to keep on existing. Intellectually, I know that one day I will die. However, until that moment comes I intend to actually live and have my consciousness continue. When it ends, I have ended and oblivion will be the result. That really is all there is to it.

You were summoning quite an argument earlier, though. Usually people only do that because they are afraid of death or because they really do care about life on a philosophical level.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Actually, I'm convinced that within the next 2 centuries humanity will be extinct through a combination of stupidity, pollution, climate change, drug immune epidemics and resource depletion. And I most certainly do not mean humanity is gone because it has evolved/been upgraded/altered. I mean extinct as surely as if a moon-sized asteroid plowed into the planet tomorrow, extinct. From my perspective, all of the technological "what ifs" are nothing more than pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.

So an argument based on known scientific quantities, things we have examples of now, is trumped by a speculative argument of extinction by superbugs in a century or two?

You're right. We're not going to convince eachother.

For the record, the superbugs are just as much a known and present quantity as the technology you have referred to. They already exist.

Beyond that point, both of our arguments require massive amounts of speculation based entirely on our optimistic or pessimistic views of where things will be heading in the future. I do not find your speculations compelling and you do not find mine compelling. Such is the way of speculative future gazing.

I wish you well, but we are not going to find common ground on this and both of our positions are going to remain merely speculative until events actually occur to prove one or both of us wrong. It is, after all, entirely possible that your vision of how things will turn out and mine are BOTH fantasies and the future will follow an entirely different path.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Why do YOU care about your ego? I mean on an intellectual level.

I exist. I am aware of my own consciousness. Even if only for the presence of the survival instinct, I want to keep on existing. Intellectually, I know that one day I will die. However, until that moment comes I intend to actually live and have my consciousness continue. When it ends, I have ended and oblivion will be the result. That really is all there is to it.

You were summoning quite an argument earlier, though. Usually people only do that because they are afraid of death or because they really do care about life on a philosophical level.

My basic philosophy is essentially: "Death is inevitable. Life isn't. Treat life like the fragile, ephemeral and temporary thing that it is."

I have no doubt that buried in the back of my mind is a fear of death as well.

 

[Dismal purple]

Beyond that point, both of our arguments require massive amounts of speculation based entirely on our optimistic or pessimistic views of where things will be heading in the future.

Very good insight. When you think about it this happens even in everyday discussions too. If two people discuss how many years in prison one should serve for murder, and they are both trying to be logical and objective, their arguments are always going to mis-match if they have different subjective perceptions of how "bad" murder is.

 

[Story]

Um still have empathy for others while still having self respect?
I think that's completely achievable and healthy and not at all stupid.

Or am I missunderstanding the OPs definition of individualism?

 

[stroopwafel]

If you want to understand why I hate individualism it's because I live in Sweden which is perhaps the most individualistic country on the planet. I am currently alone in an apartment and I haven't talked to another human in days. Back when I was a NEET it could be weeks and sometimes months. Several of my family members live in this city but in their own apartments, they are also alone most of the day. Why? Because this is the norm here. The only escape from loneliness in this society is marriage or death.

Don't you kind of contradict yourself here? The aggressive pursuit of a socially 'progressive' agenda in Sweden has left little room for discord or dispute even when these progressive ideals sterilized your society in the process. The consenus benefits people who are married or who adopt a certain lifestyle in line with state ideology but those who won't or can't comply are left behind. In other words: they have no benefit from the consensus.

Even in collectivist societies or countries like Sweden which are dictated by uniform cultural doctrines will you have outsiders. That is not 'individualism' but rather the inability to conform to cultural norms(ie in your country getting married). The narrower the definition of acceptable behavior gets the more outsiders you will have. That is the problem of social 'ideals' and collectivist thought in general and actually runs counter to individualism.

People are social creatures but I don't believe that is necessarily naturally ingrained but rather it's an evolutionary adaptive response to the environment that humanity spent the majority of it's existence in(the pleistocene). Modern society however takes away the necessity for social behavior and radically structures it around ideals and principles that advances some and alienates a lot of others leaving only the adaptive response(ie loneliness) as a bygone reminder of behavior that needs to be corrected to make up for lost connection.

Your problem doesn't seem to be so much with individualism but rather the unfairness of cultural doctrines in modern society.

 

[CaitSeith]

Your 'seed and feed' idea that you've broached before is nothing more than systematic genocide and annihilation, NOT uplifting anyone into anything.

Who cares about the ego?

Man, the original post is so lacking of context that the replies are all over the place. If you care about others, then study psychology and read the studies about personality groups (like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), just to understand how lots of people find tiring to be concerned about what others think all the time, and being forced to do so can even make them feel overwhelmed (and that's not a psychological illness)

Myers-Briggs is unscientific for your information.

The ability to adapt to other people too. And yet you seem proud of it.

EDIT: But that wasn't the point. The point was to give to that ability some insight and direction.

 

[Dismal purple]

If you want to understand why I hate individualism it's because I live in Sweden which is perhaps the most individualistic country on the planet. I am currently alone in an apartment and I haven't talked to another human in days. Back when I was a NEET it could be weeks and sometimes months. Several of my family members live in this city but in their own apartments, they are also alone most of the day. Why? Because this is the norm here. The only escape from loneliness in this society is marriage or death.

Don't you kind of contradict yourself here? The aggressive pursuit of a socially 'progressive' agenda in Sweden has left little room for discord or dispute even when these progressive ideals sterilized your society in the process. The consenus benefits people who are married or who adopt a certain lifestyle in line with state ideology but those who won't or can't comply are left behind. In other words: they have no benefit from the consensus.

Even in collectivist societies or countries like Sweden which are dictated by uniform cultural doctrines will you have outsiders. That is not 'individualism' but rather the inability to conform to cultural norms(ie in your country getting married). The narrower the definitition of acceptable behavior gets the more outsiders you will have. That is the problem of social 'ideals' and collectivist thought in general and actually runs counter to individualism.

People are social creatures but I don't believe that is necessarily naturally ingrained but rather it's an evolutionary adaptive response to the environment that humanity spent the majority of it's existence in(the pleistocene). Modern society however takes away the necessity for social behavior and radically structures it around ideals and principles that advances some and alienates a lot of others leaving only the adaptive response(ie loneliness) as a bygone reminder of behavior that needs to be corrected to make up for lost connection.

Your problem doesn't seem to be so much with individualism but rather the unfairness of cultural doctrines in modern society.

Obviously, achieving true individualism in a society is as dodgy as achieving true altruism or free will.
Let's just say that Sweden's desire to achieve individualism has led to the current state of the country, whether it's actually real individualism or not.

We have decided that individualism is best achieved through individual independence. This means that being dependent on your family is seen as abhorrent, so we have arranged it so that the state is your safety net instead(This is called folkhemmet). This is good news for gay people who are rejected by their families, because you can easily move out and survive on your own without them. And good news for poor families with disabled offspring who cost money. But at the same time it makes people isolated from each other. You don't need each other so you don't talk to each other either. In the name of individualism, if not because of individualism.

 

[RedDeadFred]

What does having empathy have to do with believing in individualism?

Who is telling you to stop caring? You can have empathy whilst still being an individual. You can understand a person's point of view, but that doesn't mean you have to change yourself for them. I don't think I've ever encountered this "policing." Maybe I'm just not understanding your point.

 

[RaikuFA]

I have no idea what is going on in this thread. Either it's cause I'm tired or cause I'm too stupid.

 

[Saetha]

Obviously, achieving true individualism in a society is as dodgy as achieving true altruism or free will.
Let's just say that Sweden's desire to achieve individualism has led to the current state of the country, whether it's actually real individualism or not.

We have decided that individualism is best achieved through individual independence. This means that being dependent on your family is seen as abhorrent, so we have arranged it so that the state is your safety net instead(This is called folkhemmet). This is good news for gay people who are rejected by their families, because you can easily move out and survive on your own without them. And good news for poor families with disabled offspring who cost money. But at the same time it makes people isolated from each other. You don't need each other so you don't talk to each other either. In the name of individualism, if not because of individualism.

This all sucks, but if I understand you correctly, then a return to multi-generational households sounds like a better idea than a return to constrictive social norms.

I've thought about it a little, too, how Western society associates "growing up" with "moving out, getting your own place, and being miserably lonely until you finally get a spouse or something. And then dealing with all the issues of being married and starting a family brings. And then dealing with the issues of that spouse leaving (Whether by death or divorce) and that family growing up and starting the cycle all over again."

I've thought on it myself and realized that it is a little stupid, how greatly we value living independently. It seems to me that it's damaging psychologically - since you're further away physically from your "safety net," and likely further from them emotionally as well. And it's damaging economically as well, since obviously three small groups paying living expenses for three separate households will be messier and less secure than one large group paying living expenses for a single household.

Western society seems to believe it is moving towards a pinnacle - that everything we've left behind culturally deserved to be left behind. I don't think that's the case with multi-generational households, though. It seems like a smarter solution than everyone living separately, and yet, if you try to live with your parents into adulthood, people will mock you for not "being normal" and acting like a "proper" adult. It's ridiculous, but I don't think more judgement will help with it. I think less would be better, so that those who crave a close family unit can have one, even when they're too old to be a child but too young to be a parent/spouse.

Alternatively, just get a roommate.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's perfectly valid given that one can act in a way that is beneficial to a single individual but harmful on the whole to the general populace

How so? If an individual act helps oneself, but harms society, it is likely that society is harmed because individuals are harmed. Individuals often oppose harm to the collective, because doing so harms individuals such as themselves, their family, or their friends.

The reverse is also true. Individuals helping other individuals helps society as a whole by default, while certain practises that help the collective, help individual lives.

Someone arguing an issue on the basis of its benefit to society as a whole may be thinking of its effects on individuals, while someone thinking of an individual issue may be thinking of the impact on society.

This is what I mean when I say that collectivist v. individualist is a false dichotomy. The two are not really distinct.

The fact that a collective is made up of individuals doesn't mean it isn't a collective.

Also hard to take it seriously if you ask me 'how so' when I say that an action can benefit an individual over society. Example, murdering people you don't like. Easy.

 

[R Man]

The fact that a collective is made up of individuals doesn't mean it isn't a collective.

Also hard to take it seriously if you ask me 'how so' when I say that an action can benefit an individual over society. Example, murdering people you don't like. Easy.

I did not say that the collective did not exist. I said that a distinct, and often oppositional, line between the two, the individual and the collective, was a false dichotomy.

P.S: Murder can be seen as an individual vs individual issue. Of course it affects society, but it can do both, which is part of my argument.