Comment on June 28th, 2004.
Many bad things have happened. Do you worry about the ones you know of?
Comment on June 28th, 2004.
Here’s one: allogenic responses, immunological rejection of skin grafts and organ transplantation.
But they aren’t all bad, are they? What are paradigm shifts in thought? A change in the way our assumptions are composed, if you follow my train of thought.
Comment on June 28th, 2004.
Friends are *concerned* about bad things that *have* happened to people they care about, and *worry* about bad things they *fear* have happened to those people. And then, naturally, they want to know more in order that they might help. Ca va toi?
Comment on June 29th, 2004.
… but friends also *ignore* bad things that have happened to *large numbers* of people they care about, because what are you going to do about bad things of that magnitude? am I right? likewise for worrying about bad things you fear have or will or might happen to large numbers of people? Does it make you worry more or less when you are one of the people in that large number?
t - there are neutral and positive paradigm shifts in thought; one hopes that they are not consistently and energetically opposed. there are also negative paradigm shifts — renunciation of what was known to be true and valid, in favor of what was known to be false and invalid… is there no difference between these shifts?
Comment on June 29th, 2004.
i’m not so sure there are good and bad directions; that realization may come after, the ole history/time will tell argument. to assume there was/is might be to assume a teleologic perspective.
now, i’m not so sure your equations are right either, but you’re in the physicist and i defer. in nature, there is a tendency towards chaos, not order; entropy increases? which might be why a crystalline structure can be so beautiful, or a frozen waterful. in a group of people too, order requires effort and may not be a natural equilibria. articificial structures (philosophies, trends) that are easily reinforced (i.e., simplification) may have and easier time being propagated.
but this is different from immunology. away from the metaphysics, back to failure modes and autoimmune diseases…
Comment on June 30th, 2004.
SJ- It’s difficult to discuss such a topic succinctly at this level of abstraction, but I do think Stalin’s view that “one death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic” grossly underestimates our moral numeracy.
Ceteris paribus, I think that more people being hurt results in more concern and action. Now, there’s a lot of ceteris that has to be paribus, including:
- Degree of caring. Influenced by kinship, friendship, similarity, reciprocity rules, etc.
- Ability to change the bad things
- Cost of intervention. In the extreme this could be physical danger, or as little as some opportunity cost
But perhaps I am too optimistic. And certainly waaaay off on a tangent to your original topic.
Comment on July 1st, 2004.
Re: “more people being hurt results in more concern…” — people shun disasters and possibilities they don’t know how to cope with, or how to comprehend. There is a social effect here also; the less people around you cope with or comprehend a disaster, the more difficult it is for you (even if you don’t need them to act with you). A small-scale example, if you will forgive me, is a thousand unfettered people being herded to death by twenty.
On larger scales, it is enough for a disaster to affect everyone equally, for most to be resigned to it. If it gets bad enough, someone will stop it. Or maybe it can’t be stopped. *I* don’t have time to deal with it… I’m so tired when I get home at the end of the day! And I really need to find more time to read. I used to love mystery novels, but recently I’ve been so busy… maybe this summer, when I have a few spare weeks, I’ll catch up on my reading.
Oh, and there’s that SPCA meeting I have to go to this weekend — thanks for reminding me.
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.