25 ms·

There is definitely a massive breakdown of old social institutions that have not adapted to the modern world. People don't need to be closely knit to their fami

There is definitely a massive breakdown of old social institutions that have not adapted to the modern world. People don't need to be closely knit to their families and local religion in order to survive anymore, and they are simultaneously discovering how awful these institutions habitually are. To improve families, I imagine we'd have to wait for a significantly large generation to mature whose parents started a family through informed choice rather than social/cultural/religious pressure. Alternatively, we could regress by taking away people's freedoms (especially women's) and force everyone to be dependent on traditional power structures just like the "good old days." Personally, I'd rather move forward, but it's not entirely clear what that looks like.

meowtimemania 4y ago
What is the modern replacement for religion? Growing up I felt like I had this huge tight-knit community via the mormon church. I've since left mormonism and don't think I'll ever find a replacement for the community I had in the church.
- xabotage 4y ago
  There won't be an exact replacement because the circumstances that led to the community cannot (or rather, should not) be replicated. For the sake of the survival of the planet/species, I also don't think any institution based around magical thinking should fill the gap. Keep in mind that high-demand religions require a huge investment of time and money. Devoting even just a fraction of those resources to hobbies, art classes, and/or other local activities tends to yield much better social results. While this might not perfectly fill the gap, neither did the religion, which is why people are leaving it.
  - williamtrask 4y ago
    > For the sake of the survival of the planet/species, I also don't think any institution based around magical thinking should fill the gap. I know this won’t be a popular point, but I think we have nearly all of human history as evidence that “magical believing” societies survive more effectively than not. At any time literally any tribe could have chosen to believe in nothing. It’s almost impossible to think that no tribe tried it. Heck. It’s the default state until you make up a deity! And yet… the overwhelming majority of societies were based on “magical” thinking. Inversely, it’s possible there could be a hard scientific truth that we discover and kills us all (“information hazard” by Nick Bostrom is a good survey… think nuclear bombs etc) It’s a really interesting mental experiment. Is truth best defined by repeatable experimentation (Manhattan project) or by human thriving (including magical thinking). Aside: Reinforcement Learning theory hardcore leans (implicitly) on the latter.
    - krapp 4y ago
      >I know this won’t be a popular point, but I think we have nearly all of human history as evidence that “magical believing” societies survive more effectively than not. I disagree. "more effectively than not" is an implicit comparison between "magical believing" societies and "non magical believing" (in other words, scientific) societies. Given the latter allows modern medicine, surgery, sanitation, mass food production and countless other advances, it seems obvious that science affords a much greater degree of survival than does belief in magic. One only needs to look at the increase in the average human lifespan and reduction in infant mortality rates over time to see that.
      - williamtrask 4y ago
        Science has given many things, and as a professional research scientist, I help it continue to do so. I by no means think science should go away. However, it also created the ability for humanity to destroy itself: the nuclear bomb, climate change, and plenty of other existential threats. Also there are plenty of non-tech tribes which display tremendous lifespans. To my knowledge, the common threads among centenarians is not usually tech or globalisation driven. Often they’re religious and they’re very often closely knit with their local communities. The jury is still out on whether science is net positive. We’re only a few hundreds if years in (12,000 if you want to start with the dawn of technology…being the plow). It’s made lives better and worse while simultaneously significantly decreasing the amount and depth to which humans believe they have a purpose, a pursuit I feel science has made little to no progress on. But my stronger point is that magical thinking was naturally selected (as in natural selection) to be almost universally advantageous for the first 99% of human existence. I’m not sure our 1% experiment with a scientific society is as of yet conclusively better. We’ve almost made humans extinct. We might still. I don’t know of a magical belief (karma, etc.) that has put humanity in such a grave threat as the Cold War or climate change, for example.
        Dudeman112 4y ago
        >However, it also created the ability for humanity to destroy itself: the nuclear bomb, climate change, and plenty of other existential threats Would it be better to not have any knowledge at all and be at the mercy of nature? Acquiring power always comes together with the possibility of misuse. Maybe those who never got as far as we got would prefer to eventually get wiped out by nature (and it's gonna happen either way, what with the heat death and all that). I'd still prefer to have lived to know the electron than the alternative
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    Humans have tried "we believe in nothing", throughout history, and yet ... I see no Cathedrals, no beautiful songs, no art, no science, no entire civilizations built to the honor of ... nothing. >which is why people are leaving it. Attendance at TLM is increasing, not decreasing.
    - krapp 4y ago
      >I see no Cathedrals, no beautiful songs, no art, no science, no entire civilizations built to the honor of ... nothing. Not believing in God isn't equivalent to a belief in nothing. Of course, plenty of songs, art and literally all of science have been created outside of the religious sphere. It seems regressive to the point of being archaic to dismiss the validity of all human effort not explicitly done in "honor" of the divine. You want a Cathedral built in honor of "nothing?" Have the Hubble Space Telescope. As far as I'm concerned no gargoyle or arch wrought from stone or stained glass or Biblical prose can even compare to the transcendent - and wholly material - beauty of the Hubble Deep Field photo.
      - williamtrask 4y ago
        I think it’s interesting to observe that science is a fork of religion both in historical record and in substance, but with the “belief in something” removed. At its base is the same problem: nobody lives long enough to know what’s going on, so we write it down in a literary cannon of truth. Science’s entrance requirement is based on the scientific method (repeatable experimentation). Religions tend to have differing entrance requirements. Perhaps the most common (and useful to this convo) is the opposite of science: things I saw that break the pattern (miracles, disasters, etc….divine interventions) and which cannot be repeated. If we do live in a simulation this is the only kind of evidence that could point to it… external signs that break the rules of the game. But by definition science cannot discover this kind of information. Also religions have a knack for solving collective action problems through locally irrational beliefs (like karma). Science has trouble allowing these into a cannon. In the case of karma this is because it’s unscientific. It’s not enough to believe that karma would be good for society scientifically and thus we should believe in it. This doesn’t solve the prisoners dilemma. It’s only by (everyone) literally believing in karma that it can have its effect. It’s things like this that science structurally struggles to contribute to society. Proving things outside the system (we’re in a simulation), consciousness, collective action, etc. Not: It’s also worth noting that many of the greatest scientists and artists were religious. Hard to know where to give credit there. Nit: A photo from Hubble isn’t beautiful because of the telescope, it’s beautiful because of what nature made it to be. Hubble is merely a reflection.
  - Beaver117 4y ago
    Hobbies and art classes can't ever fill the void that religion left. We have no real solution to this problem
    - xabotage 4y ago
      I somewhat agree, but I am optimistic that society will change in other ways to fill this gap. It need not be any single activity or institution.
  - williamtrask 4y ago
    .
    - xabotage 4y ago
      I don't help the poor as a hobby or because I was told to. I help the poor because I have compassion and empathy. Animals also demonstrate these same pro-social behaviors, and I'm pretty sure none of them are Jewish or Hindu.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - williamtrask 4y ago
        I think the big question here is “why do you and I have compassion and empathy when many (many!) in human history have not?” Related: do animals act pro-socially because of rational scientific rigour or because they blindly inherit behaviours from their peers/ancestors?
        xabotage 4y ago
        Empathy is a survival strategy that benefits society as a whole whereas sociopathy is a survival strategy that benefits the individual. Humans are complex and diverse enough to display both sets of behaviors within the population. I thought it should be fairly obvious that social instincts are "blindly inherited," I can't imagine why you think that any institution, scientific or religious, would need to manufacture them.
- watwut 4y ago
  It is not religion that makes it tight. Coming from Christian country, plenty of non tight churches around. It is intentional setup of mormonism and its power structure. Tight structure means more power for leaders and makes it harder to leave if you see something wrong.

meowtimemania 4y ago

What is the modern replacement for religion? Growing up I felt like I had this huge tight-knit community via the mormon church. I've since left mormonism and don't think I'll ever find a replacement for the community I had in the church.

xabotage 4y ago
There won't be an exact replacement because the circumstances that led to the community cannot (or rather, should not) be replicated. For the sake of the survival of the planet/species, I also don't think any institution based around magical thinking should fill the gap. Keep in mind that high-demand religions require a huge investment of time and money. Devoting even just a fraction of those resources to hobbies, art classes, and/or other local activities tends to yield much better social results. While this might not perfectly fill the gap, neither did the religion, which is why people are leaving it.
- williamtrask 4y ago
  > For the sake of the survival of the planet/species, I also don't think any institution based around magical thinking should fill the gap. I know this won’t be a popular point, but I think we have nearly all of human history as evidence that “magical believing” societies survive more effectively than not. At any time literally any tribe could have chosen to believe in nothing. It’s almost impossible to think that no tribe tried it. Heck. It’s the default state until you make up a deity! And yet… the overwhelming majority of societies were based on “magical” thinking. Inversely, it’s possible there could be a hard scientific truth that we discover and kills us all (“information hazard” by Nick Bostrom is a good survey… think nuclear bombs etc) It’s a really interesting mental experiment. Is truth best defined by repeatable experimentation (Manhattan project) or by human thriving (including magical thinking). Aside: Reinforcement Learning theory hardcore leans (implicitly) on the latter.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >I know this won’t be a popular point, but I think we have nearly all of human history as evidence that “magical believing” societies survive more effectively than not. I disagree. "more effectively than not" is an implicit comparison between "magical believing" societies and "non magical believing" (in other words, scientific) societies. Given the latter allows modern medicine, surgery, sanitation, mass food production and countless other advances, it seems obvious that science affords a much greater degree of survival than does belief in magic. One only needs to look at the increase in the average human lifespan and reduction in infant mortality rates over time to see that.
    - williamtrask 4y ago
      Science has given many things, and as a professional research scientist, I help it continue to do so. I by no means think science should go away. However, it also created the ability for humanity to destroy itself: the nuclear bomb, climate change, and plenty of other existential threats. Also there are plenty of non-tech tribes which display tremendous lifespans. To my knowledge, the common threads among centenarians is not usually tech or globalisation driven. Often they’re religious and they’re very often closely knit with their local communities. The jury is still out on whether science is net positive. We’re only a few hundreds if years in (12,000 if you want to start with the dawn of technology…being the plow). It’s made lives better and worse while simultaneously significantly decreasing the amount and depth to which humans believe they have a purpose, a pursuit I feel science has made little to no progress on. But my stronger point is that magical thinking was naturally selected (as in natural selection) to be almost universally advantageous for the first 99% of human existence. I’m not sure our 1% experiment with a scientific society is as of yet conclusively better. We’ve almost made humans extinct. We might still. I don’t know of a magical belief (karma, etc.) that has put humanity in such a grave threat as the Cold War or climate change, for example.
      - Dudeman112 4y ago
        >However, it also created the ability for humanity to destroy itself: the nuclear bomb, climate change, and plenty of other existential threats Would it be better to not have any knowledge at all and be at the mercy of nature? Acquiring power always comes together with the possibility of misuse. Maybe those who never got as far as we got would prefer to eventually get wiped out by nature (and it's gonna happen either way, what with the heat death and all that). I'd still prefer to have lived to know the electron than the alternative
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Humans have tried "we believe in nothing", throughout history, and yet ... I see no Cathedrals, no beautiful songs, no art, no science, no entire civilizations built to the honor of ... nothing. >which is why people are leaving it. Attendance at TLM is increasing, not decreasing.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >I see no Cathedrals, no beautiful songs, no art, no science, no entire civilizations built to the honor of ... nothing. Not believing in God isn't equivalent to a belief in nothing. Of course, plenty of songs, art and literally all of science have been created outside of the religious sphere. It seems regressive to the point of being archaic to dismiss the validity of all human effort not explicitly done in "honor" of the divine. You want a Cathedral built in honor of "nothing?" Have the Hubble Space Telescope. As far as I'm concerned no gargoyle or arch wrought from stone or stained glass or Biblical prose can even compare to the transcendent - and wholly material - beauty of the Hubble Deep Field photo.
    - williamtrask 4y ago
      I think it’s interesting to observe that science is a fork of religion both in historical record and in substance, but with the “belief in something” removed. At its base is the same problem: nobody lives long enough to know what’s going on, so we write it down in a literary cannon of truth. Science’s entrance requirement is based on the scientific method (repeatable experimentation). Religions tend to have differing entrance requirements. Perhaps the most common (and useful to this convo) is the opposite of science: things I saw that break the pattern (miracles, disasters, etc….divine interventions) and which cannot be repeated. If we do live in a simulation this is the only kind of evidence that could point to it… external signs that break the rules of the game. But by definition science cannot discover this kind of information. Also religions have a knack for solving collective action problems through locally irrational beliefs (like karma). Science has trouble allowing these into a cannon. In the case of karma this is because it’s unscientific. It’s not enough to believe that karma would be good for society scientifically and thus we should believe in it. This doesn’t solve the prisoners dilemma. It’s only by (everyone) literally believing in karma that it can have its effect. It’s things like this that science structurally struggles to contribute to society. Proving things outside the system (we’re in a simulation), consciousness, collective action, etc. Not: It’s also worth noting that many of the greatest scientists and artists were religious. Hard to know where to give credit there. Nit: A photo from Hubble isn’t beautiful because of the telescope, it’s beautiful because of what nature made it to be. Hubble is merely a reflection.
- Beaver117 4y ago
  Hobbies and art classes can't ever fill the void that religion left. We have no real solution to this problem
  - xabotage 4y ago
    I somewhat agree, but I am optimistic that society will change in other ways to fill this gap. It need not be any single activity or institution.
- williamtrask 4y ago
  .
  - xabotage 4y ago
    I don't help the poor as a hobby or because I was told to. I help the poor because I have compassion and empathy. Animals also demonstrate these same pro-social behaviors, and I'm pretty sure none of them are Jewish or Hindu.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - williamtrask 4y ago
      I think the big question here is “why do you and I have compassion and empathy when many (many!) in human history have not?” Related: do animals act pro-socially because of rational scientific rigour or because they blindly inherit behaviours from their peers/ancestors?
      - xabotage 4y ago
        Empathy is a survival strategy that benefits society as a whole whereas sociopathy is a survival strategy that benefits the individual. Humans are complex and diverse enough to display both sets of behaviors within the population. I thought it should be fairly obvious that social instincts are "blindly inherited," I can't imagine why you think that any institution, scientific or religious, would need to manufacture them.
watwut 4y ago
It is not religion that makes it tight. Coming from Christian country, plenty of non tight churches around. It is intentional setup of mormonism and its power structure. Tight structure means more power for leaders and makes it harder to leave if you see something wrong.