I was just reading about zoochosis, and it hit me: Calhoun's Mouse Utopia was about mice developing neuroses as a result of the observed loss of free will. Of course, mice can live fine in a cage, but mice also don't think too much. Yet, a crowded "mouse utopia" cage was too much for even their little mice brains to handle. Their operations went offline, and neurosis took over.The same could apply to modern society. I think there has been a great loss of optimism from people. Communities are smaller, no one knows their neighbor, men and women not having sex or kids, and an economy that is at best flat but at worst catastrophic every 5-10 years. People fall into neurotic habits simply because they give up on their future. They let go and check out. This is when the ego wants to die but cannot. As a side note, there are some alternative explanations for this pessimism that I think are all bullshit. You have conservative fearmongering (muh jebus, muh moderation), liberal fearmongering (muh women, muh minorites, muh sex changes), environmental and technological shit (muh earth, muh singularity), and probably some other types I'm forgetting.I think this pessimism is like recognizing that you've become domesticated, fully accepting your fate within the walls of your cage. I think all civilization is about is the domestication of humans, but there are degrees to this. Something about the last 100 years, or particularly the last ~60 years, has resulted in mass societal discontent. Any thoughts on what that might be?
>>532710145why has no one thought to use this in regards to the living conditions of 3rd worlders who all live on top of each other. we need to shrink their population sizes. any Indians living more than 6 to a house should be illegal.
>>532710145>As a side note, there are some alternative explanations for this pessimism that I think are all bullshit. You have conservative fearmongering (muh jebus, muh moderation), liberal fearmongering (muh women, muh minorites, muh sex changes), environmental and technological shit (muh earth, muh singularity), and probably some other types I'm forgetting.I think ultimately, conservatives need to realize that liberals are not the bad guy, and liberals need to realize that conservatives are not the bad guy. They are shadows of each other, so the fearmongering is essentially fearing yourself.I think feminism is an extremely interesting subject here because I see it as essentially women reacting to having to live like a male. If they have to go to school, study hard, work hard, network, be a responsible adult, then they're going to tear apart everything else in their life out of anger and stress.I think the natural structure is that civilization domesticates men, and then men domesticate women, which both shields women from civilizational domestication stress and makes the goals simpler for the men. Consequently, there is a rational reactionary movement to feminism that opposes it but cannot explain with adequate reasoning. It's evidentiary empirically that feminism either destroys civilization or is part of civilizational destruction, but it's harder to comprehend at the ground level.The problem is that this reactionary ideology only defines it self in opposition to feminism and has no positive morals of its own. That makes it a valid argument but not a heartfelt one, and these types of arguments rarely win the crowd. That's why they exist on online forums and are not considered politically correct.>>532710499Maybe increased intelligence or communication density changes the perceived size of the cage.Never forget the Rockefeller Radio Project preceded most of the 20th century intelligence operations.
>>532710145David Benatar talks a little about this. His theory, which is very convincing to me, is that people who endure worse lives get selected in the gene pool and those who are realists, pessimists, die off. So there will always exist people who think life is bearable or even positive. The trade-off is that they will get progressively dumber. Like in the movie Idiocracy
>>532710779This seems somewhat accurate. I'm not sure genetic selection matters as much here as memetic selection though, particularly in the short run.
