Discussion»Questions»Outside the Mug» Would a too cerabral society eventually go extinct by reasoning itself out of existence with notions of overpopulation containment bypassing
Actually, a "too cerebral" society would probably go extinct because human emotion is essential to practical human thought.
The nueroscientist Antonio DeMasio has done research with people who are "too cerebral" (i.e. they've had damage to the limbic system and do not experience the normal range and intensity of human emotions). His findings suggest:
A) Without emotions, you don't know what you want. Even if wants are externally imposed (e.g. "You should eat something so you don't starve to death"), emotionless people can get caught in paralysis by analysis, because they have no irrational mechanism to short-circuit contemplation and arrive at a "good enough" decision about action.
B) Without emotions, you cannot model what OTHER PEOPLE want, or why they might not like a particular action. A society of emotionless self-actors would essentially be a Mafia-run world, where people would commit horrible brutality because, "it's just business." Yes, arguably, international geopolitiics IS currently run something like that...and if you question practioners on the cruelty of the system, they invariably frame their responses in terms of "rational self-interest." I'd call that point proven...;-D...
Nah, it's our next stage of higher evolution. Ditching the lies we call emotions.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 15, 2016 10:24 PM MST
Evidence to my prior statement? Nothing in text, just everyday experience in a society of emotionally stunted over-grown children. Everything is about "FEELINGS". Backbone and a thick skin aren't taught any more.
Unfortunately, one of the things Gilbert discusses in his book which is left out of the article above is the flip side of the "psychological immune system", which is in a world where the slights to our well-being are comparatively minor, the immune system does NOT kick in. Hence, paradoxically, we feel the emotional effects of First World Problems more intensely than getting dumped, getting cancer, or going to war.
But, apparently, ranting about how Jews..er, Millenials are a bunch of whiny spoiled ungrateful brats is acceptable bigotry nowadays, so maybe you're not interested in whether your subjective impressions are backed by evidence or not.
That was a conversation on here a few days ago where a couple of other AMers felt perfectly entitled to riff about the negative qualities of "Millenials", providing no evidence to support their negative stereotyping.
I like aping such behavior while plugging in the word "Jews" in place of whatever identity group is being criticized. The "shock value" of the word is highly effective at illustrating just how bigoted such behavior is.
Your rant above about "people these days" was only slightly less offensive because you didn't single out a particular group quite so explicitly. Nevertheless, you admitted you have that negative stereotype on the basis of essentially ZERO empirical evidence, just Confirmation Bias-tainted anecdote.
How is your characterization, "People these days are stupid whiny lazy spoiled jerks" fundamentally different from saying "Jews/Lower Elbonians/Millenials are stupid whiny lazy spoiled jerks"?
I'd like to address this entire question by stating that the overall concept of global overpopulation is a myth. If you speak of overpopulation within specific areas or regions, then this is true and akin to owning a 50 acre farm and keeping 24 chihuahuas contained in a 5x5 foot box
There is no society that was not cerebral. We are lumps of clay without the cerebral. All we are is what is in our heads. I do not know how something can be too cerebral. What is the definition of too cerebral anyway?
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives 