I share the disdain for the Left and its "highly coercive" ways. But can someone PLEASE explain how Donald Trump #47 isn't governing in the most "highly coercive" way possible right now as we speak?
It's such a valid point. I think people were really duped. People were sick of the stifling political correctness of the Left and wanted a president who would take their economic issues seriously and tackle inflation. I don't blame them. I wonder if people would still have voted for him if they could have seen into the future. I've heard a lot of people expressing "buyer's remorse," but he also still seems to have a lot of support.
Well said, and we seem to agree on so much. As bad as the Left (and Biden) was, I just never bought the idea that a nearly morally bankrupt billionaire conman was going to be the savior. This time he's turning out to be much worse than I even predicted, but strangely there seems to be surprisingly little "buyer's remorse", even according to the supposedly "liberal" media.
My conspiracy theory is that the media is not nearly as favoring of "liberal" candidates as people think, and the media coverage of Harris and Clinton was actually quite unfavorable if people think about it deeply and critically, while also being indirectly promoting of Trump as "the competent, practical, common sense choice" in a very shrewd way (I believe he is NONE of those things). So no wonder Harris and Clinton lost and they could have easily lost by more given the media's portrayal of them versus Trump. The media gains a lot when Trump is in office. In 2020 they had enough to cover with COVID so I think they didn't care that time, and maybe they even wanted "change" then too which is always good for their business, which would explain Biden's narrow win (Trump still came surprisingly close to winning given the horrible circumstances of death and despair at the time, which he played a huge part in by hiding what he knew in January 2020 from the public, and even after that, handling COVID with a "re-election at all costs" approach).
Such a great read. This makes me think of a comment I heard in a podcast the other day that (I think) accurately sums up what I see as one of the biggest personality hurdles in American culture: "the siren song of individualism"
I use the term "holistic selfishness". this means if everyone does what is TRULY in their best interest, it can only make the world a better place. Imagine each person beaming with greater light and the world lighting up because they personally are aligned. Of course this truly part requires some discernment and ethics and long term thinking. How is it not in my best interest to lie, cheat, abuse and and steal? Lots of ways including going to jail could ruin my life, or living with guilt could destroy me, or people would shun me and not respect me and that wouldn't be fun, or i would get reincarnated to be stolen from, etc.
How is it best that if a woman getting divorced is best for her, it's also best for the man and the children? lots of scenarios like each gets to remarry people they are compatible with and live a healthier life. Stopping generational cycles of abuse.
If someone is truly going to be compromised by taking a vaccine the world cannot, in the holistically selfish paradigm, be better off sacrificing them to the common good. We need to allow for stratification and individualized risk assessment to make the refinements that allow all people to maximize their good. We need to trust in a greater intelligence to make it all work out if we just follow our own intuitive heart path to the best of our ability.
it's true people don't like being told what to do, but that's not the main reason people don't like the public policies on water, milk, and vaccines. it's that they actually disagree with the foundational premises of the interventions (for example unnatural, too novel to the species, and therefore a precautionary principal would suggest side effects are to be expected even if not immediately apparent). and/ or they disagree with the risk/reward calculations posed by the government. they may feel the calculations are corrupt and biased by corporate interests, ideological blindspots, or that one size fits all policies don't allow for individual adjustments to maximize the common good.
all these issues and the preservation of the food supply free from dangerous modern chemicals, gmos, etc appeal to freedom and personal liberty, but it's a specific kind of freedom, that has more to do with purity and nature than anarchy.
You articulate it well. And in Europe, where the precautionary principle is coded into law, they do allow raw milk and some euro countries do not fluoridate water (Germany). But they all mandate vaccines. For whatever reason, Americans are especially sensitive about being told what to do by government. That may just be our cultural heritage - although I think it’s a pretty universal human characteristic - or it may be partially due to a mistrust of government arising from the fact that our government does relatively little for us (compared with many euro countries).
Most euro countries do not flouridate the water. They say only 2-3 percent recieve it although salt and other measures are available: "On the international front, most of the west European countries have rejected water fluoridation including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. The only three western European countries which still practice water fluoridation are Ireland (100%), Spain (10%), and the United Kingdom (11%). " https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/.
Vaccination is also mostly NOT mandatory as far as i see (35 percent European countries mandatory). It is actually mostly mandatory in the poorer Eastern European countries and not mandatory in the more northern countries like Sweden we tend to envy. https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13052-018-0504-y/tables/1
Quick google searches or AI searches, or world in data maps, corroborate these journal articles.
It didn't used to be so bad in the states because it wasn't a big deal to get an exemption to enter school for religious or personal beliefs or medical reasons. Then they really started cracking down and forcing everyone to conform and doctors that were willing to give exemptions were losing their licenses. Clearly this authoritatian rigidity (looking at you California) backfires and does exactly what you don't want--harms real vulnerable people who need exemptions. People who have had a vaccine injury themselves or in their family ARE a vulnerable class, but because vaccine injury is typically dismissed and gaslit for ideological and political reasons you can't get or give exemptions to them. People have been cajoled, coerced, condescended, and even tricked by doctors and hospital staff into vaccination.
And let's not even get started on the formerly mandatory to work and travel covid vaccine (and still mandatory for some colleges and medical outfits) as it applies to this precautionary principle with being an entirely new and different technology, barely tested, AND not even efficacious at preventing transmission or infection, more akin to a lackluster flu vaccine than measles, but did they warn you about that? Purely unethical and anti-informed consent debacle in a hundred ways. How much division has been spread and man hours wasted arguing. Was it worth it?
We talk about good enough parenting. What about finding common ground on good enough immunity? For those who are very worried that making vaccines non-mandatory would deeply endanger themselves and others I would ask the following "positive thinking" questions of myself:
- is getting vaccinated myself still HIGHLY effective at prevention of disease in myself, according to the science i trust ( yes)
-Do i have the autonomy to stay up to date and test my immunity to make sure (yes)
-Does every person vaccinated also contribute to herd immunity and reduce the chance of vulnerable people getting infected (yes, herd immunity isn't an on/off switch there is a linearish decrease in cases leading up to full eradication)
-Was i alive in the 80's when only a fraction of the people were fully vaccinated, for only a fraction of the diseases, compared to today and was it a terrible time with disease, disfigurement and and death everywhere?(wasnt for me)
-Do most infectious diseases need 95 percent immunity to achieve herd immunity (no, measles is the worst. most don't spread as easily and need less perfect coverage)
-Do people who get sick and recover also contribute to herd immunity going forward? (yes)
-Should someone actually get infected with measles or such would we be able to reduce the death and disability rate from that just from medical advancements and access alone, since it is 2024? (I would think so, vitamin A is now widely used by doctors worldwide to prevent measles complications).
-Is it possible that for people both vaccinated and unvaccinated immunity and disease control can be boosted in many other ways than vaccines? Through lifestyle and nutrition, through air filtration, through antiseptic nasal sprays during critical times, through drugs? (Absolutely, immunity comes from a healthy immune system, vaccines are one narrow a tool that works with the immune system. How many more exist or are waiting to be invented? The vast bulk of reduction in infectious disease burden from historical peaks came from sanitation and environmental regulations not vaccines).
-Is it possible that life is risky and has always been risky and i can accept that and not fixate on small risks and policing the children of other people? (only 500 people per year died of measles prior to a vaccine, and other parents make innumerable risky decisions).
-Is it possible some of the so called vulnerable that im supposed to be protecting don't care what I do and arent vaccinated themselves (for sure, many elderly and pregnant mothers oppose mandatory vaccination, many with autoimmune disease may feel vaccination CAUSED their disease, and many babies are partially protected through the immunity of their mother).
What we actually need on this country is a medical freedom amendment to protect against medical tyranny in further emergency situations, protect from insidious corporate influence on government to create superfluous mandates for any new thing they can come up with, to prevent discrimination against people for their medical choices, and yes it should cover freedom of choice for women as well.
I think another piece of this, in addition to not liking being told what to do, is what I think of as “too-stupidism.” The government cannot provide any nuanced public health messaging for fear that the public is too stupid to heed nuanced advice. It’s a difficult problem because tbh it’s probably true. Imagine if sexual health messaging suddenly started really pushing Fertility Awareness Method. There would probably be A LOT of accidental pregnancies because many people are just too irresponsible to follow all the rules of FAM. So it’s much easier, less risky, to push the pill as a one size fits all solution. But that, of course, erodes the trust of those for whom FAM would be a good option.
The same thing happens with vaccines: public health officials are afraid of RFK emphasizing the rare but potentially devastating side effects of vaccines because that could scare off a dangerously high percentage of the population from getting vaccines. But again, we don’t like being lied to or infantilized, and so pretending that those risks just don’t exist is frustrating.
And then all of those issues are exacerbated when they’re entangled with the moral high ground of the political Left (e.g. you’re a terrible person if you even question vaccines).
Yes that’s what the Emily Oster piece is about that I linked in the article. I absolutely believe our government agencies need to stop talking down to people and give them the full story. I believe that would limit conspiracy theories and actually help promote the policies they intend to push. Of course it has to be really clearly presented. But I think that can be done!
Absolutely true. When the government simplifies things for the lowest common denominator and shuts down discussion it makes everyone smarter than that think the government officals and agencies are absolutely idiotic and stupid or evil even though they may not be quite THAT stupid or evil. Manipulation, and obfuscation absolutely backfires every time. And it's s just not morally conscionable. They shot themselves in the foot so bad with Covid. It blew up the Left contributing to mass defection and ultimately election loss, it blew up media, it blew up trust in doctors, and scientists. All because they insisted upon coercive and controlling tactics instead of transparency and reason.
And I might note there's no INHERENT reason for Americans to be stupid. like in their brains. like stupider than Sweden. Unless we go back to considering eugenics. So what amount of stupidity is simply caused by the government and media refusing to have more nuanced discussions and causing the populace to be composed of walking- talking propaganda robots spouting talking points for whatever sports team they are currently on???. If the government takes the position that critical thinking is an inherent danger then yes, your population is going to be pretty stupid. It's fear based thinking and nothing more. Everyone high school student should be trained in critical thinking, logical fallacies, propaganda spotting and tactics, reading and interpreting research etc.
To be honest they just use things like conspiracy theory and people coming to the wrong conclusions as an excuse. What they are really worried about is people coming to the RIGHT conclusions . The primary reason for discouraging critical thinking is always it's a threat to someone's power. So in terms of the article's final point of re- distribution of wealth, freedom of information is crucial to achieving that naturally.
The corrective nuance of application and future off-hands qualities would make it closer to socialist, not communist (though I agree people would accuse you of communism); further, most democratic-based societies with better infrastructure and baseline quality of life tend to be socialized democracies. This is similar to what Sanders has been advocating for. One of the big issues is US Americans don’t actually know or understand these differences, and they aren’t open to correction when they are wrong about something. It is very different in Europe and even in Asia (having experienced living there), because those regions tend to actually value accuracy over vibes. Neither region fluoridates their water, but they are also diligent about educating their population about its importance and making oral hygiene products with fluoride available. US Americans literally don’t understand the science behind fluoride or generally even how the scientific method works. Those regions also handled the pandemic and vaccinations differently than the US. I was stationed in Japan for the pandemic, navigating 3 different sets of restrictions, and the complaints coming out of the US about very basic mandates and masks just looked insanely immature and ignorant. The pandemic really highlighted how science-illiterate the USA is.
Is it that we are more science illiterate or just less willing to prioritize the collective over the individual? Asian cultures like Japan are notoriously much more focused on the collective and willing to sacrifice individual comforts or desires (or even life). That’s pretty well documented I believe.
Yes it is a factor, but that wasn’t my point. Cultural studies does require looking at both the forest and the trees. Generally people in Japan actually have a basic grasp of science, actually value being knowledgeable, and prioritize education. A lot of the US population doesn’t understand very basic science, how science works, etc., but even worse does so with over confidence. Having lived around the world and experienced the differences: this is a huge cultural hurdle in the US.
I just double checked to make sure the data hasn’t changed significantly as of late, and the US still performs horribly in both general literacy and in STEM literacy compared to the rest of the developed nations. The countries that have more in common with HG in terms of group/individual balance do score higher, they do have more stable infrastructure, and they do have stronger education and social programs. There is obviously still diversity and nuances between those countries (eg Japanese vs Finish cultures), but generally speaking the data matches my point. HG groups share knowledge as much as possible with each other, and value knowledge because it is directly linked to survival outcomes. Education and literacy are huge factors in a discussion about HG models working for modernized societies. If the US can’t value or prioritize those, economic changes and less government oversight will not necessarily have significant outcomes towards more egalitarianism.
I wouldn’t lump removing fluoride from drinking water with stopping vaccinations… fluoride is intended as a topical dental treatment and most Europe countries don’t do it to drinking water. Toothpaste and dentists do of course use it topically!
I wasn’t lumping them for any other reason other than to say that they are examples of things where people don’t like the government making decisions for them. When it comes to public health benefits versus costs they are obviously quite different.
Otherwise, good points, and I fully support a 20 hour work week! As a parent I think 20 hours is more or less the maximum a parent can work and properly care for kids without communal support, without burnout.
I share the disdain for the Left and its "highly coercive" ways. But can someone PLEASE explain how Donald Trump #47 isn't governing in the most "highly coercive" way possible right now as we speak?
It's such a valid point. I think people were really duped. People were sick of the stifling political correctness of the Left and wanted a president who would take their economic issues seriously and tackle inflation. I don't blame them. I wonder if people would still have voted for him if they could have seen into the future. I've heard a lot of people expressing "buyer's remorse," but he also still seems to have a lot of support.
Well said, and we seem to agree on so much. As bad as the Left (and Biden) was, I just never bought the idea that a nearly morally bankrupt billionaire conman was going to be the savior. This time he's turning out to be much worse than I even predicted, but strangely there seems to be surprisingly little "buyer's remorse", even according to the supposedly "liberal" media.
My conspiracy theory is that the media is not nearly as favoring of "liberal" candidates as people think, and the media coverage of Harris and Clinton was actually quite unfavorable if people think about it deeply and critically, while also being indirectly promoting of Trump as "the competent, practical, common sense choice" in a very shrewd way (I believe he is NONE of those things). So no wonder Harris and Clinton lost and they could have easily lost by more given the media's portrayal of them versus Trump. The media gains a lot when Trump is in office. In 2020 they had enough to cover with COVID so I think they didn't care that time, and maybe they even wanted "change" then too which is always good for their business, which would explain Biden's narrow win (Trump still came surprisingly close to winning given the horrible circumstances of death and despair at the time, which he played a huge part in by hiding what he knew in January 2020 from the public, and even after that, handling COVID with a "re-election at all costs" approach).
https://x.com/IvankaTrump/status/1328324970854948866?lang=en
https://x.com/Mike_Pence/status/1328349116414439430?lang=en
Such a great read. This makes me think of a comment I heard in a podcast the other day that (I think) accurately sums up what I see as one of the biggest personality hurdles in American culture: "the siren song of individualism"
Yep. But as I said, a desire for individual autonomy is probably an ancient feature of humanity and is not incompatible with cooperation and sharing!
This Teal Swan video about the zero sum game fallacy is a good way of describing how selfishness and selflessness are not at odds. https://youtu.be/B2NxMr9Kf7w?si=WJ3GC_eQvcoRtZxj
I use the term "holistic selfishness". this means if everyone does what is TRULY in their best interest, it can only make the world a better place. Imagine each person beaming with greater light and the world lighting up because they personally are aligned. Of course this truly part requires some discernment and ethics and long term thinking. How is it not in my best interest to lie, cheat, abuse and and steal? Lots of ways including going to jail could ruin my life, or living with guilt could destroy me, or people would shun me and not respect me and that wouldn't be fun, or i would get reincarnated to be stolen from, etc.
How is it best that if a woman getting divorced is best for her, it's also best for the man and the children? lots of scenarios like each gets to remarry people they are compatible with and live a healthier life. Stopping generational cycles of abuse.
If someone is truly going to be compromised by taking a vaccine the world cannot, in the holistically selfish paradigm, be better off sacrificing them to the common good. We need to allow for stratification and individualized risk assessment to make the refinements that allow all people to maximize their good. We need to trust in a greater intelligence to make it all work out if we just follow our own intuitive heart path to the best of our ability.
it's true people don't like being told what to do, but that's not the main reason people don't like the public policies on water, milk, and vaccines. it's that they actually disagree with the foundational premises of the interventions (for example unnatural, too novel to the species, and therefore a precautionary principal would suggest side effects are to be expected even if not immediately apparent). and/ or they disagree with the risk/reward calculations posed by the government. they may feel the calculations are corrupt and biased by corporate interests, ideological blindspots, or that one size fits all policies don't allow for individual adjustments to maximize the common good.
all these issues and the preservation of the food supply free from dangerous modern chemicals, gmos, etc appeal to freedom and personal liberty, but it's a specific kind of freedom, that has more to do with purity and nature than anarchy.
You articulate it well. And in Europe, where the precautionary principle is coded into law, they do allow raw milk and some euro countries do not fluoridate water (Germany). But they all mandate vaccines. For whatever reason, Americans are especially sensitive about being told what to do by government. That may just be our cultural heritage - although I think it’s a pretty universal human characteristic - or it may be partially due to a mistrust of government arising from the fact that our government does relatively little for us (compared with many euro countries).
Most euro countries do not flouridate the water. They say only 2-3 percent recieve it although salt and other measures are available: "On the international front, most of the west European countries have rejected water fluoridation including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. The only three western European countries which still practice water fluoridation are Ireland (100%), Spain (10%), and the United Kingdom (11%). " https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/.
Vaccination is also mostly NOT mandatory as far as i see (35 percent European countries mandatory). It is actually mostly mandatory in the poorer Eastern European countries and not mandatory in the more northern countries like Sweden we tend to envy. https://ijponline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13052-018-0504-y/tables/1
Quick google searches or AI searches, or world in data maps, corroborate these journal articles.
It didn't used to be so bad in the states because it wasn't a big deal to get an exemption to enter school for religious or personal beliefs or medical reasons. Then they really started cracking down and forcing everyone to conform and doctors that were willing to give exemptions were losing their licenses. Clearly this authoritatian rigidity (looking at you California) backfires and does exactly what you don't want--harms real vulnerable people who need exemptions. People who have had a vaccine injury themselves or in their family ARE a vulnerable class, but because vaccine injury is typically dismissed and gaslit for ideological and political reasons you can't get or give exemptions to them. People have been cajoled, coerced, condescended, and even tricked by doctors and hospital staff into vaccination.
And let's not even get started on the formerly mandatory to work and travel covid vaccine (and still mandatory for some colleges and medical outfits) as it applies to this precautionary principle with being an entirely new and different technology, barely tested, AND not even efficacious at preventing transmission or infection, more akin to a lackluster flu vaccine than measles, but did they warn you about that? Purely unethical and anti-informed consent debacle in a hundred ways. How much division has been spread and man hours wasted arguing. Was it worth it?
We talk about good enough parenting. What about finding common ground on good enough immunity? For those who are very worried that making vaccines non-mandatory would deeply endanger themselves and others I would ask the following "positive thinking" questions of myself:
- is getting vaccinated myself still HIGHLY effective at prevention of disease in myself, according to the science i trust ( yes)
-Do i have the autonomy to stay up to date and test my immunity to make sure (yes)
-Does every person vaccinated also contribute to herd immunity and reduce the chance of vulnerable people getting infected (yes, herd immunity isn't an on/off switch there is a linearish decrease in cases leading up to full eradication)
-Was i alive in the 80's when only a fraction of the people were fully vaccinated, for only a fraction of the diseases, compared to today and was it a terrible time with disease, disfigurement and and death everywhere?(wasnt for me)
-Do most infectious diseases need 95 percent immunity to achieve herd immunity (no, measles is the worst. most don't spread as easily and need less perfect coverage)
-Do people who get sick and recover also contribute to herd immunity going forward? (yes)
-Should someone actually get infected with measles or such would we be able to reduce the death and disability rate from that just from medical advancements and access alone, since it is 2024? (I would think so, vitamin A is now widely used by doctors worldwide to prevent measles complications).
-Is it possible that for people both vaccinated and unvaccinated immunity and disease control can be boosted in many other ways than vaccines? Through lifestyle and nutrition, through air filtration, through antiseptic nasal sprays during critical times, through drugs? (Absolutely, immunity comes from a healthy immune system, vaccines are one narrow a tool that works with the immune system. How many more exist or are waiting to be invented? The vast bulk of reduction in infectious disease burden from historical peaks came from sanitation and environmental regulations not vaccines).
-Is it possible that life is risky and has always been risky and i can accept that and not fixate on small risks and policing the children of other people? (only 500 people per year died of measles prior to a vaccine, and other parents make innumerable risky decisions).
-Is it possible some of the so called vulnerable that im supposed to be protecting don't care what I do and arent vaccinated themselves (for sure, many elderly and pregnant mothers oppose mandatory vaccination, many with autoimmune disease may feel vaccination CAUSED their disease, and many babies are partially protected through the immunity of their mother).
What we actually need on this country is a medical freedom amendment to protect against medical tyranny in further emergency situations, protect from insidious corporate influence on government to create superfluous mandates for any new thing they can come up with, to prevent discrimination against people for their medical choices, and yes it should cover freedom of choice for women as well.
I think another piece of this, in addition to not liking being told what to do, is what I think of as “too-stupidism.” The government cannot provide any nuanced public health messaging for fear that the public is too stupid to heed nuanced advice. It’s a difficult problem because tbh it’s probably true. Imagine if sexual health messaging suddenly started really pushing Fertility Awareness Method. There would probably be A LOT of accidental pregnancies because many people are just too irresponsible to follow all the rules of FAM. So it’s much easier, less risky, to push the pill as a one size fits all solution. But that, of course, erodes the trust of those for whom FAM would be a good option.
The same thing happens with vaccines: public health officials are afraid of RFK emphasizing the rare but potentially devastating side effects of vaccines because that could scare off a dangerously high percentage of the population from getting vaccines. But again, we don’t like being lied to or infantilized, and so pretending that those risks just don’t exist is frustrating.
And then all of those issues are exacerbated when they’re entangled with the moral high ground of the political Left (e.g. you’re a terrible person if you even question vaccines).
Yes that’s what the Emily Oster piece is about that I linked in the article. I absolutely believe our government agencies need to stop talking down to people and give them the full story. I believe that would limit conspiracy theories and actually help promote the policies they intend to push. Of course it has to be really clearly presented. But I think that can be done!
Absolutely true. When the government simplifies things for the lowest common denominator and shuts down discussion it makes everyone smarter than that think the government officals and agencies are absolutely idiotic and stupid or evil even though they may not be quite THAT stupid or evil. Manipulation, and obfuscation absolutely backfires every time. And it's s just not morally conscionable. They shot themselves in the foot so bad with Covid. It blew up the Left contributing to mass defection and ultimately election loss, it blew up media, it blew up trust in doctors, and scientists. All because they insisted upon coercive and controlling tactics instead of transparency and reason.
And I might note there's no INHERENT reason for Americans to be stupid. like in their brains. like stupider than Sweden. Unless we go back to considering eugenics. So what amount of stupidity is simply caused by the government and media refusing to have more nuanced discussions and causing the populace to be composed of walking- talking propaganda robots spouting talking points for whatever sports team they are currently on???. If the government takes the position that critical thinking is an inherent danger then yes, your population is going to be pretty stupid. It's fear based thinking and nothing more. Everyone high school student should be trained in critical thinking, logical fallacies, propaganda spotting and tactics, reading and interpreting research etc.
To be honest they just use things like conspiracy theory and people coming to the wrong conclusions as an excuse. What they are really worried about is people coming to the RIGHT conclusions . The primary reason for discouraging critical thinking is always it's a threat to someone's power. So in terms of the article's final point of re- distribution of wealth, freedom of information is crucial to achieving that naturally.
The corrective nuance of application and future off-hands qualities would make it closer to socialist, not communist (though I agree people would accuse you of communism); further, most democratic-based societies with better infrastructure and baseline quality of life tend to be socialized democracies. This is similar to what Sanders has been advocating for. One of the big issues is US Americans don’t actually know or understand these differences, and they aren’t open to correction when they are wrong about something. It is very different in Europe and even in Asia (having experienced living there), because those regions tend to actually value accuracy over vibes. Neither region fluoridates their water, but they are also diligent about educating their population about its importance and making oral hygiene products with fluoride available. US Americans literally don’t understand the science behind fluoride or generally even how the scientific method works. Those regions also handled the pandemic and vaccinations differently than the US. I was stationed in Japan for the pandemic, navigating 3 different sets of restrictions, and the complaints coming out of the US about very basic mandates and masks just looked insanely immature and ignorant. The pandemic really highlighted how science-illiterate the USA is.
Is it that we are more science illiterate or just less willing to prioritize the collective over the individual? Asian cultures like Japan are notoriously much more focused on the collective and willing to sacrifice individual comforts or desires (or even life). That’s pretty well documented I believe.
Yes it is a factor, but that wasn’t my point. Cultural studies does require looking at both the forest and the trees. Generally people in Japan actually have a basic grasp of science, actually value being knowledgeable, and prioritize education. A lot of the US population doesn’t understand very basic science, how science works, etc., but even worse does so with over confidence. Having lived around the world and experienced the differences: this is a huge cultural hurdle in the US.
I just double checked to make sure the data hasn’t changed significantly as of late, and the US still performs horribly in both general literacy and in STEM literacy compared to the rest of the developed nations. The countries that have more in common with HG in terms of group/individual balance do score higher, they do have more stable infrastructure, and they do have stronger education and social programs. There is obviously still diversity and nuances between those countries (eg Japanese vs Finish cultures), but generally speaking the data matches my point. HG groups share knowledge as much as possible with each other, and value knowledge because it is directly linked to survival outcomes. Education and literacy are huge factors in a discussion about HG models working for modernized societies. If the US can’t value or prioritize those, economic changes and less government oversight will not necessarily have significant outcomes towards more egalitarianism.
Thanks for bringing the data. I think it’s probably some of both? But I am all for improving education in this country.
I wouldn’t lump removing fluoride from drinking water with stopping vaccinations… fluoride is intended as a topical dental treatment and most Europe countries don’t do it to drinking water. Toothpaste and dentists do of course use it topically!
I wasn’t lumping them for any other reason other than to say that they are examples of things where people don’t like the government making decisions for them. When it comes to public health benefits versus costs they are obviously quite different.
Otherwise, good points, and I fully support a 20 hour work week! As a parent I think 20 hours is more or less the maximum a parent can work and properly care for kids without communal support, without burnout.
I resonated with most of this article. Feels good!