NEET is the natural human state

[sserafim]

Well, young people's brains do function perfectly fine and the points that the OP mentioned have also been echoed by many older adults, so, while likely unintentional, it does make your comment come off as a bit condescending.

I saw this comment somewhere. Why is this the case? Why does society revolve around conformity and why is everyone expected to conform?

"The issue is nation's, societies and communities of any kind are inherently NT and revolve around conformity of some kind."

 

[EmptyHeaded]

The difference in life expectancy was due to child mortality rates and even then that doesn't automatically make the past worse. It's important to note that the child mortality rates would likely have been affected by increased exposure to diseases as humans started to live in permanent settlements, around animals, and around more humans. To add insult to injury, they also would have been exposed to human and animal waste (think feces), which would have worsened it. With that in mind, this doesn't apply as much to hunter-gatherer societies, who didn't have to deal with as much disease. Hence why so many indigenous people died when the Europeans started colonizing different countries. A lot of people a part of those societies were healthy to my knowledge.

Past societies also usually had stronger communities, they would have practiced certain things that have long since been forgotten by most in the modern world (such as elimination communication), had less pollution, etc. The point is, that modern society is better in some aspects and worse in others. Looking down on past societies only makes you just as ignorant as those who glorify them. It's better to appreciate past societies and what they did right or better than us, while also acknowledging their bad aspects.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I mentioned life expectancy especially in regard to the time before the Agricultural revolution.
Most people during that time died to diseases and infections, something that's almost impossible to imagine for most people in the western world.
When people talk about how we're living in the best period of human history so far, they don't ignore that some things were better in the past. We have much more comfortable and safe lives than ever before, which is what (I think) most people mean when they say "It's never been better".

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I saw this comment somewhere. Why is this the case? Why does society revolve around conformity and why is everyone expected to conform?

"The issue is nation's, societies and communities of any kind are inherently NT and revolve around conformity of some kind."

I'm going to take a guess and say that conformity stems from us being social animals. Conforming to a specific set of behaviours and beliefs can make it easier for us to live in a community with one another in comparison to if everyone acted the way they wanted to.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I mentioned life expectancy, especially in regard to the time before the Agricultural revolution.
Most people during that time died to diseases and infections, something that's almost impossible to imagine for most people in the western world.
When people talk about how we're living in the best period of human history so far, they don't ignore that some things were better in the past. We have much more comfortable and safe lives than ever before, which is what (I think) most people mean when they say "It's never been better".

Actually, a lot of the diseases that we now have to protect ourselves from since the agricultural era was due to the agricultural era. While disease and infection and impacted many pre-agricultural communities, they weren't dying off as much as a lot of people like to think they were. Again, a lot of diseases came from permanent human settlements, where a large number of humans were living close to one another and with animals. Along with that, comfort is relative. Someone raised in a hunter-gatherer society may prefer that lifestyle over being forced into living a more modern-day lifestyle. While you would have had to deal with things, like the elements, you also would have had way more leisurely time and a much closer community to lay back on. Modern humans work longer hours to survive and a lot of people are dealing with issues revolving around loneliness right now.

Along with that, while modern medicine is great, the way it's being used for profit in some parts of the world isn't. Modern medicine isn't accessible to many of those who are poor and living in developing countries. Drug laws are also not based on safety, which is why you have cases of drugs, like many classic psychedelics and cannabis, being illegal in many parts of the world while more dangerous drugs are more readily available. You also have the many cases of big pharma knowingly pushing drugs that are addictive and harmful to maximize their profits.

You also have issues with racism, which wouldn't have been as prominent in the past due to race not even being a thing throughout most of human history. The patriarchal structure that we see today didn't start until around the agricultural era either. Queerphobia likely wasn't as big of a thing back then (pre-agriculture) in comparison to now. We are having issues with how screen time is impacting the brains of children and children and now being exposed to more and more disturbing content through online spaces. We can go on and on about the problems of modern day society and why it, as a whole, isn't any better than any other time.

It's important to remember that everyone things that they grew up in the best time period. At the end of the day, which time period is the best is completely subjective. Every time period has its good side and bad side and we shouldn't treat the different parts of human history as just good or bad.

 

[Hotsackage]

Look, I'm not here to troll people, in fact it's the opposite, I'm poking at the people condescending us, and think they have life figured out. But neway I apologize, if it came at you like that

 

[EmptyHeaded]

Actually, a lot of the diseases that we now have to protect ourselves from since the agricultural era was due to the agricultural era. While disease and infection and impacted many pre-agricultural communities, they weren't dying off as much as a lot of people like to think they were. Again, a lot of diseases came from permanent human settlements, where a large number of humans were living close to one another and with animals. Along with that, comfort is relative. Someone raised in a hunter-gatherer society may prefer that lifestyle over being forced into living a more modern-day lifestyle. While you would have had to deal with things, like the elements, you also would have had way more leisurely time and a much closer community to lay back on. Modern humans work longer hours to survive and a lot of people are dealing with issues revolving around loneliness right now.

Along with that, while modern medicine is great, the way it's being used for profit in some parts of the world isn't. Modern medicine isn't accessible to many of those who are poor and living in developing countries. Drug laws are also not based on safety, which is why you have cases of drugs, like many classic psychedelics and cannabis, being illegal in many parts of the world while more dangerous drugs are more readily available. You also have the many cases of big pharma knowingly pushing drugs that are addictive and harmful to maximize their profits.

You also have issues with racism, which wouldn't have been as prominent in the past due to race not even being a thing throughout most of human history. The patriarchal structure that we see today didn't start until around the agricultural era either. Queerphobia likely wasn't as big of a thing back then (pre-agriculture) in comparison to now. We are having issues with how screen time is impacting the brains of children and children and now being exposed to more and more disturbing content through online spaces. We can go on and on about the problems of modern day society and why it, as a whole, isn't any better than any other time.

It's important to remember that everyone things that they grew up in the best time period. At the end of the day, which time period is the best is completely subjective. Every time period has its good side and bad side and we shouldn't treat the different parts of human history as just good or bad.

I think the thing with diseases is quite balanced. Diseases that would have killed you back then are nothing to worry about now, but now we have diseases that weren't ever a problem back then. At the same time, the average American or European doesn't have to worry about a lot of diseases. The probability of me dying because of an illness I contracted is very low. Most people that would have perished back then can now grow older than any stone age human could ever have. The West is doing much better in terms of physical health (and likely a few other aspects too) than any other human in any other period of time, but that obviously only applies to them. I think one of the biggest problems now in Western countries is mental health.
As you said, some things are now better, others are worse.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I think the thing with diseases is quite balanced. Diseases that would have killed you back then are nothing to worry about now, but now we have diseases that weren't ever a problem back then. At the same time, the average American or European doesn't have to worry about a lot of diseases. The probability of me dying because of an illness I contracted is very low. Most people that would have perished back then can now grow older than any stone age human could ever have. The West is doing much better in terms of physical health (and likely a few other aspects too) than any other human in any other period of time, but that obviously only applies to them. I think one of the biggest problems now in Western countries is mental health.
As you said, some things are now better, others are worse.

The issues with mental health can actually be partly ttributed to the structure of today's society, that is just another big L on our part, lol. Along with that, plenty of people back then were able to reach old age. Again, low life expectancy was due to infant mortality rates (that were likely high in permanent settlements as opposed to hunter-gatherer societies that didn't deal with that much disease).

The physical health of the West also isn't that great. It's been on decline due to the increase in ultra-processed foods, sugar intake, sodium intake, etc. To add insult to injury, there is a huge problem when it comes to accessibility of healthy foods and healthy living in general. You can live in the US, one of the richest countries out there, but live an area with no local grocery stores, not have the money to pay for healthy groceries, and not have the time to cook yourself meals. We are dealing with an obesity problem at the moment, there have been increases in children suffering from tooth decay, and many mental health problems are also arising partly due to our increasingly unhealthy lifestyle.

I know I'm coming off as a bit overly critical right now, but I do feel like it's needed considering the state we are in right now. In reality, even when looking at health, how much better our health is today in comparison to past still depends on what areas of health you are talking about. In terms of diet, the past might win depending in which time period and area you are talking about. If you are talking about dental health then the same applies. If you are talking about your risk of dying from an infection then of course the modern era wins, but if you are talking about exposure to diseases then that depends on which era you are specifically talking about, along with which demographic you are talking about (isolated hunter-gatherer tribes aren't likely to be dealing with as much exposure to disease in comparison to the Tudor period). The point is that I feel like most conversations regarding the past vs today are more nuanced than a lot of people make them out to be.

 

[landslide2]

Absolutely. And we're not making it any easier to both live a productive life and provide for yourself while getting those other needs met. I hardly get to exercise now that I'm at a job where I'm working more hours. Of course, right? There are only so many hours in the day and I'm even more tired when I get home . . . which will only get worse as I get out of shape. These are cycles we could break.


You aren't most people assuming you represent yourself accurately on this site. You have plenty of resources available.



nitpick for most parts of the US since the clean air act. Buy a big Dyson Air Purifier.


Buy spring water.


You don't have access to any type of whole foods/farmer's market?


Renting a home with a roof, heating, and air conditioning is worse than living in a cave subject to the whims of weather and having to fight off wild animals and other competing humans?

Again, though, you have resources. Save up for an RV and go live out on the road visiting nature.


Absolutely doesn't apply to you. (not that you don't have the instinct but the idea that you couldn't if you chose to act on it.)


I'm really, truly, happy to see that you admit you need intimacy and a sense of connection. I very much believe that you can have them if you allow yourself to.

You can just do these things seems to me a bit privileged. It's hard to take your version of advice as universal experience. Not many people have assistants, but they do have bosses. It's quite difficult to save when many live paycheck to paycheck, record number are poorer, record numbers are homeless because indeed this zero-sum economic system has created massive inequity, benefiting the few over the very, very many. Productivity has risen quite a bit yet wages have been stagnant, an exploitive economic system. Majority are not shareholders, don't own stocks, bonds or can invest in the market. Young people see the systems they're inheriting leave them out-priced from their future. No, resources aren't just out there and available to everyone.

 

[derpyderpins]

You can just do these things seems to me a bit privileged. It's hard to take your version of advice as universal experience. Not many people have assistants, but they do have bosses. It's quite difficult to save when many live paycheck to paycheck, record number are poorer, record numbers are homeless because indeed this zero-sum economic system has created massive inequity, benefiting the few over the very, very many. Productivity has risen quite a bit yet wages have been stagnant, an explosive economic system. Majority are not shareholders, don't own stocks, bonds or can invest in the market. Young people see the systems they're inheriting leave them out-priced from their future. No, resources aren't just out there and available to everyone.

I generally agree with you on all of that. I prefaced the comment with the fact that I was speaking to her situation. She comes from a rich family.

 

[fuzzy-clown]

You can still live like that if you want to.

 

[Raindancer]

This is definitely over simplifying it, but if you take a look at videos/youtube channels, of people in many different countries living the "simple farm life" they have millions of subs nd everyone says they want to live like this. Granted it's not even a majority, but you can't deny people are finding the way most of us are living today as not satisfying and we are wanting a more simple life. I think we've hit the peak of consumerism and it just doesn't cut it. The lack of community, it all adds up to more people saying enough in one way or another.

 

[landslide2]

We live in the best period of our history.
This is a fact.
We have an incomparably more comfortable life than our ancestors.
We don't know what early people thought on a daily basis.
Our ancestors were constantly developing. This means that they were not entirely satisfied with their situation.
They made their lives easier by inventing new technologies.

Of course, the modern world has made us weaker than our ancestors. Sometimes much weaker.
Some of our instincts are dormant due to our lifestyle.
Our psyche is simply not adapted to the current speed of the world.

The problem is not the modern world.
The problem is, the wrong approach.
The pace of this world is very fast. Too fast.
We are attacked with information from all sides. We are overstimulated.
The system is poorly designed and support is limited.

On the other hand, we are still fighting for survival.
The scale has simply changed.
There was a time when you had to hunt something to survive.
Now you have to earn money at work to buy food.
We still fight, but in a different way.

We develop to live better.
That's why I don't agree that things were better in the past.
You don't need to romanticize the past.

Humanity must focus on development and not think that it was better to stay in caves.
If we had stayed in the caves, maybe now you would be dying in great agony from a disease that is not a problem now.

Of course, two different periods in the history of our species cannot be completely compared.
If you were born in the very long past, you would have a different perspective than you have now.

What about the climate? Not best in all of history. When the next generation is going to worse off than the previous is telling that something really went wrong. Shareholders demand growth, growth more growth, the stock price needs to be higher. But that has also exploited both the planet, and the people. Birth rates are falling globally, the people who seem most concerned are businesses. im not touting hunter-gatherer, but degrowth now has to happen.

 

[DavidInternet]

You're supposed to hunt for food, search for water and shelter

And if you fail you just die and that's it

Not a constant grind of going to school for years or trying to move up in a career

That's why people are so unhappy these days

Life is a scam for most people

Agreed.

 

[EmptyHeaded]

The issues with mental health can actually be partly ttributed to the structure of today's society, that is just another big L on our part, lol. Along with that, plenty of people back then were able to reach old age. Again, low life expectancy was due to infant mortality rates (that were likely high in permanent settlements as opposed to hunter-gatherer societies that didn't deal with that much disease).

I've only had a quick look at it, but from what I've read, the life expectancy excluding infant mortality was only around 30. Infections, disease, parasites, predators. The old and sick weren't likely to survive for long, and food wasn't always there.

The physical health of the West also isn't that great. It's been on decline due to the increase in ultra-processed foods, sugar intake, sodium intake, etc. To add insult to injury, there is a huge problem when it comes to accessibility of healthy foods and healthy living in general. You can live in the US, one of the richest countries out there, but live an area with no local grocery stores, not have the money to pay for healthy groceries, and not have the time to cook yourself meals. We are dealing with an obesity problem at the moment, there have been increases in children suffering from tooth decay, and many mental health problems are also arising partly due to our increasingly unhealthy lifestyle.

I think it's important here to remember the differences. What you mentioned are much bigger problems in the US than say Germany. No universal healthcare (and a low minimum wage), an emphasis on car centered infrastructure, a weak social safety net, and less regulations on food additives etc. turn a problem into a big, if not very big problem. From what I know, the US is not the best example for a Western country.

I know I'm coming off as a bit overly critical right now, but I do feel like it's needed considering the state we are in right now. In reality, even when looking at health, how much better our health is today in comparison to past still depends on what areas of health you are talking about. In terms of diet, the past might win depending in which time period and area you are talking about. If you are talking about dental health then the same applies. If you are talking about your risk of dying from an infection then of course the modern era wins, but if you are talking about exposure to diseases then that depends on which era you are specifically talking about, along with which demographic you are talking about (isolated hunter-gatherer tribes aren't likely to be dealing with as much exposure to disease in comparison to the Tudor period). The point is that I feel like most conversations regarding the past vs today are more nuanced than a lot of people make them out to be.

I think it's important to be critical in this topic.
In terms of disease, I think it depends on what you're talking about. Exposure is higher but risk of dying lower (for those in the West at least).

They certainly are a lot more nuanced, at least when comparing modern times to the stone age. I don't think you can say the same about a lot of other periods though.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I've only had a quick look at it, but from what I've read, the life expectancy excluding infant mortality was only around 30. Infections, disease, parasites, predators. The old and sick weren't likely to survive for long, and food wasn't always there.

Hunter-gatherers do not experience short, nasty, and brutish lives as some earlier scholars have suggested (Vallois 1961). Instead, there appears to be a characteristic life span for Homo sapiens, in that on average, human bodies function well for about seven decades. These seven decades start with high infant mortality rates that rapidly decline through childhood, followed by a period in which mortality remains essentially the same to about 40 years. After this period, mortality rates rise steadily until around 70 years of age (Gurven and Kaplan 2007).

Life Expectancy in Hunter-Gatherers

'Life Expectancy in Hunter-Gatherers' published in 'Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science'

link.springer.com

The whole, "people in the usually only made it to 30" type rhetoric had already been debunked a long time ago. It has been stated by researchers over and over again that high infant mortality rates are the main reason for why the life expectancy in past was so low. Many of those who survived infancy are able to make make it to adulthood. High mortality rates fall as people get older, up until they reach old age, which leads to them going back up again.

I think it's important here to remember the differences. What you mentioned are much bigger problems in the US than say Germany. No universal healthcare (and a low minimum wage), an emphasis on car centered infrastructure, a weak social safety net, and less regulations on food additives etc. turn a problem into a big, if not very big problem. From what I know, the US is not the best example for a Western country.

In Europe, sugar intake in adults ranges from about 7-8% of total energy intake in countries such as Hungary and Norway, to 16-17% in Spain and the United Kingdom. Worryingly, sugar intake is much higher among children, ranging from about 12% in Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden, to nearly 25% in Portugal

The WHO recommends a reduction in sugar intake throughout the life course to less than 10%
of the total energy intake per day for adults and children, with additional benefits for intake of
less than 5%. The American Heart Association recommends an intake of less than 100 calories
or 25 grams of added sugars per day for women, and less than 150 calories or 37.5 grams of
added sugars per day for men.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/library/publications/added-sugar-final_idf-europe-position.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjYiqSbkYSGAxXkm7AFHaxpADYQFnoECA8QBg&usg=AOvVaw3zTJxYoIGJTMozZTdbSdPZ

Nearly 1 in 20 children are exposed to high levels of pesticide pollution, which can be particularly damaging to children and has been linked to detrimental health effects and developmental delays. The report also notes that there were 472 deaths of children and young people in the EU due to air pollution in 2019, the most recent year data are available, the large majority of whom were under one year old.

Rising poverty, deteriorating mental health, online sexual abuse and exposure to pollution among challenges faced by millions of children across the EU – UNICEF

Ahead of decisive European Parliament elections, UNICEF urges the European Union to safeguard and strengthen children’s rights

www.unicef.org

Also, Europe's healthcare is already starting to face challenges in keep up.

Europe is facing substantial challenges in continuing to deliver high-quality healthcare services to its citizens. Ageing populations, cultural shifts, rigid and complex financing models, increasing costs of innovation, a scarcity of skilled personnel, rising health inequalities and health complexities stemming from climate change are threatening the sustainability and affordability of healthcare services, and adversely affecting citizens' health and productivity. To ensure citizens' future health and well-being, Europe will need to chart a new, cost-effective and sustainable approach to healthcare.

The Future of Health in Europe

To ensure citizens’ future health and well-being, Europe will need to chart a new, cost-effective and sustainable approach to healthcar

www2.deloitte.com

We analyzed data derived from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe. The sample included 12.099 participants aged ≥ 50 from 16 European countries. We analyzed self-reported working hours, health outcomes of blood cholesterol, heart attack, diabetes, and hypertension, as well as a longitudinal analysis of health outcomes among healthcare workers and workers in 13 other industries. Statistical analyses identified that men are working longer hours per week compared with women in all included countries, and different levels of increase in health conditions in different industries. We also observed a slower increase in the prevalence of health conditions for healthcare workers compared with workers in other industries, especially diabetes and hypertension. The largest increase in prevalence of observed health conditions was reported for cholesterol, which increased for 17.14% among healthcare workers and for 21.70% in other industries over the observed nine-year period. Although the data point to a potentially high level of awareness in the field of preventive health among healthcare workers, more preventive health activities should be included in workplaces to strengthen employees' health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9566276/

Even with higher living standards they are still facing a host of issues.

 

[EmptyHeaded]

The whole, "people in the usually only made it to 30" type rhetoric had already been debunked a long time ago. It has been stated by researchers over and over again that high infant mortality rates are the main reason for why the life expectancy in past was so low. Many of those who survived infancy are able to make make it to adulthood. High mortality rates fall as people get older, up until they reach old age, which leads to them going back up again.

I know that the whole "peasants in the (e.g.) 1500s only lived till 30" was incorrect, but not that it didn't apply to much earlier too. I didn't read more than two or three short pieces about it and all of them separated infant mortality from general mortality, so I assumed that the general life expectancy was much lower. Sorry.

Even with higher living standards they are still facing a host of issues.

I know. I just meant that it can be quite a bit worse in the US than in Europe (which is sad because it could be much better). Americans, at least those that I know, tend to take a very US centric POV and assume their problems apply to everyone else too, especially when it comes to workplace satisfaction and physical health.