It's taken me a few days to respond because my attention has been elsewhere.

We've gotten a little into the weeds, and I think we might be best served by trying to return the focus of the discussion to your original point.

To summarize my understanding of your argument you are saying that the pursuit of happiness or the desire to avoid suffering leads to more suffering. Therefor in order to eliminate suffering one should learn to accept it as the nature of existence and focus on selflessness as a way to cope.

I think I got sidetracked on the specifics of your argument because I thought you were offering your post as philosophic proof of your arguments rather than a more casual discussion. With that in mind, allow me to start over.

Many philosophies suggest something similar. The Buddhist believe that life is suffering and that trying to change things only creates more suffering. And that to attain enlightenment one should live in harmony with reality. The stoics believed that accepting reality as it is presented to you is how you attain happiness. Though the happiness the Greeks mean is actually what a contemporary philosopher might call contentment.

Camus, an existentialist and absurdist, wrote a book about Sisyphus and used it to explain a similar concept. Sisyphus is doomed to spend all of eternity rolling a boulder up a hill only for it to roll down once he reaches the top. It is grueling and pointless toil and should he ever stop he would be chained to the boulder and crows would peck out his eyes and organs; only for it all to start over the next day. Camus suggests that for Sisyphus to find solace in his existence he must not only accept that his life is meaningless but laugh at how absurd it is to exist at all and for existence to be so utterly awful.

In Christianity there is also Liberation Theology which is rooted in an idea almost exactly like yours. They view God more as a metaphorical ideal to aspire to than a real entity and that through helping others we are all helped.

I agree with you in a broad sense. Life is a bunch of bullsh!t and there isn't much we can do about it. We're better served focusing our energy on the things we can change and finding things that give our suffering meaning because we'll never be rid of it.

I think we mostly disagree on the causes for the state of reality we live in and some of the conclusions and arguments you've made to support your position.

Just so you know, I'm not an atheist. I was raised American Southern Baptist and was very involved in the church. My uncle was a pastor and tried to push me into the ministry too, but around 16 I lost my faith. From there I explored skepticism and as many religions as I could, including, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Satanism, Occultism, Zoroastrianism, and a bunch of post-medieval western philosophy. In my early 30's I discussed Christianity at great length with something I dated for a few years that had their masters in Theology and was a former youth pastor (but had lost their faith prior to meeting me).

Today I would consider myself agnostic because I don't see God as needed to explain anything about the nature of existence, but am willing to examine any evidence presented for the existence of a God.

What I'm saying is that we don't know the full scope of how social media affects developing minds. The harm might outweigh the benefits or not, we just don't know yet. I will be very interested to see the academic research on the effects the ban in Australia has on Australian children.

Social media has benefits for adults and children, but the ways in which these platforms influence thought and behavior creates significant problems. As an example consider Elon Musk's purchase of twitter and the subsequent effects it had on the American election and culture. On the one hand that is the reality we all live in and learning to adapt and compensate is a critical skill to teach our children, on the other there is no reason that things must be the way they are now.

If I could speak to a policy maker I would encourage them not to ban social media use for kids, for no other reason than bans (usually) don't work to address the problem they set out to solve and are easily circumvented online by motivated individuals. If lawmakers were interested in addressing the safety of children online, regulating social platforms would be a better starting point. Unfortunately though, tech companies have a lot more money to lobby against those kinds of initiatives than teenagers and the adults interested in protecting them.

Platforms could address the issues that lead to harm and create a beneficial tool for it's users, however there is little incentive for them to do so because the current system exists as the result of their efforts to maximize profit and furthers other agendas. (I don't mean that in a cynical anti-capitalist way, just that it is the nature of the way social media companies are structured and funded.) The research suggests that we might need to reevaluate how we integrate social media into our lives and build these platforms.

If nothing else barring children from using social media will present us an opportunity to get a better understanding of how social media effects them.

In real terms, I have no idea if this is a good move or a bad one. We'll know more in five years once the Aussie nerds can publish on the effects. I can't think of a compelling reason not to try it though.

Social media use is bad for everyone. Tech companies have spent billions of dollars refining and optimizing their platforms to maximize engagement and usage at the expense of all other considerations.

I've been researching the mental health effects of social media for an unrelated project I am working on. From an incomplete read of the research, social media use has a strong correlation with mental health issues. I haven't encountered anything peer reviewed that proposes a specific relationship between the two, but my personal (somewhat well informed) guess is that someone will find a link eventually. That's just where the research I've read seems to be headed.

I'd guess they probably have a symbiotic relationship. (Certain kinds of) Mentally ill folks use social media more than others, why or if that is anything more than a red herring is still to be determined, but I have read coverage of other research that suggests that social media might be destroying attention spans (though I haven't read that research myself yet).

Getting the political system involved in this effort is probably undesirable simply because elected officials seem to have entirely abandoned any pretense of using science to inform policy and are basically puppets for the oligarchy. Voting against the interests of their donors is unlikely.

Are you familiar with Project Semicolon? It's an anti-suicide thing and they use the semicolon because it is unnecessary and using it is a choice by the author that there sentence could end, but they have chosen to continue. Your top level comment has very similar vibes to some of the things that the group advocates.

The founder did eventually decide to end their story and they kind of faded out, but the message is a good one.

I agree with you about the power accepting your own mortality grants. All human stories end in death, pretending there is any other option is delusional.

Dolphins and elephants don't write dissertations because they can't hold pens and don't have the same values as humans. Just because an animal does not behave like a human, does not mean it's less intelligent. I've never written a dissertation and I bet you haven't either. They don't shit where they eat in the wild, in captivity they do, but so would you or I if we were in jail. No other animal has all of the markers of intelligence we have defined, but many of them are close or equivalent to humans in one or more of those aspects.

But more than that, we don't know how other creatures think and view the world. The blue whale, for example has a brain twice the size of a human's, they have language (and individuals have names), social structures, and regularly set thier own interests aside for thier pod. They may not write dissertations, but they do engage in creative activities recreationally (singing).

Respectfully, that is not the simplest explanation, the shortest perhaps, but there is no evidence I am aware of that would even suggest that as an explanation. It also has the baked in assumption that humans are conscious on purpose. Intention implies some kind of intelligent hand guiding things, but nothing changes about the world if you accept a creator exists or doesn't. All the evidence science has been able to collect though suggests natural processes and pseudo-random chance are why the world is the way it is.

I make no assumptions about the kind of god or creator you offer beyond what you've said about it. I used examples from history to point out that many people have dreamed up many gods, few of which are good. To me that brings into question your premise that your god must be the avatar of selflessness. If anything an inactive god who allows so much suffering to exist in the world is the opposite of that.

Hunter S. Thompson carried a revolver on him for most of his adult life for that exact reason.

... He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment. I don't know if that is brave or stupid or what, but it was inevitable. I think that the truth of what rings through all his writing is that he meant what he said. If that is entertainment to you, well, that's OK. If you think that it enlightened you, well, that's even better. If you wonder if he's gone to Heaven or Hell, rest assured he will check out them both, find out which one Richard Milhous Nixon went to—and go there. He could never stand being bored. But there must be Football too—and Peacocks ...

— Some friend of Thompson's after his death whose name I forget and am too lazy to look up (I have the quote unattributed in my notes on Thompson). But it's quoted on Thompson's Wikipedia if you're not as lazy, lol.

But humans aren't the only animals capable of selflessness. Most mammals have instinctive drives that encourage risky behavior in some circumstances (a momma bear defending her cubs from predators, for example). Some types of insects (like ants and bees) will sacrifice their own lives in defense of their community.

Just because humans are the most advanced intelligence (debatable) we are aware of doesn't make them special. Some of the other intelligent animals on earth, like crows, primates, octopuses, dolphins, and whales all demonstrate human-like intelligence in one or more areas. Gorillas and bonobos can be taught language, crows use tools, octopuses are better problem solvers than most people, whales and dolphins have naturally developed their own proto-languages. All of those creatures demonstrate behavior that suggests they have some form of consciousness (though probably not as advanced as humans, except maybe the octopus). Much of our study of the animal kingdom has been from an anthropocentric perspective, but in the last 20 years or so science has been leaving that behind because the more we learn the less merit it has.

Existing to suffer discounts most of the human experience. If there was a logically grounded reason for consciousness a simpler explanation, based on the other animals we have to study, is that consciousness is a useful trait for social animals and provides a significant advantage for survival.

It's also not reasonable to assume that a hypothetical god must be selfless. Almost all gods humans have worshiped have demanded sacrifice in one form or another. The Abrahamic God (which I am most familiar with) for example demands faith, love, and adherence to a code of conduct or be tortured for the remainder of existence with no possibility of forgiveness. Infinite punishment for finite infractions is not selfless, it is capricious and evil.

Suffering, be it physical or emotional pain, is the way our automatic systems (like breathing or the cardiovascular system) communicate with the decision making part of our brains. Almost all macroscopic creatures have some form of this behavior.

A stretched the real numbers (33 states for Trump) for the sake of my joke.

Realistically, Maga passing a constitutional amendment repealing the 22nd (I think) that limits terms for Presidents is possible, but incredibly unlikely. It's a lengthy process on purpose full of all sorts of ways to slow it down even further or derail it entirely. He has the political will and the power right now and for the next 2 years, but I'd bet if he's able to pull off even some of his more spectacular plans, enough people would finally get it and he'd lose at least part of Congress, if not all of it.

I think it would need to hold up in court right? If someone were to be arrested as a result of this technology, even if the are guilty af, their attorney would be able to question the validity of the science and call into question the officer's probably cause for the initial arrest.

Either way if it actually becomes real tech, junk science or not, inadmissible or not, the cops will still use it. They do a bunch of junk science the courts won't accept but use parallel construction or cherry picking their evidence to support it, like polygraph tests, criminal "line-ups", etc.

There is a difference between trying to do the right thing and doing nothing because it's not perfect. I tend to let perfect lead me to inaction or passivity far too often at the cost of my own interests.

I've taken to trying to do things good enough rather than right and it's helped a lot

We're in kind of a mess right now. The best way we can get out of it is if all of us little people stick together. I'm not a conservative but by Lemmy standards my politics and world view are alien. We all need to figure out a way to coexist and work together if we are ever going to have a chance to deprogram our MAGA neighbors and find a way forward together.

It seems productive to try to share my weird ass views and try to find common ground.

To be fair he hadn't outed himself as a racist asshat in 2016. He was just a narcissist I thought was funnier than Trump.

As to your point about my inaction contributing to more dead in Gaza, I am indifferent. Any blood on our hands in Gaza is unacceptable. Had Kamala been chosen in a primary I might have considered voting for her as a compromise candidate, but having her foisted on us after the other compromise candidate was too stubborn to step down before he got in the way is bullshit.

Gaza was what OP asked about, but it's definitely not the only thing I care about at the polls. The main reason I decided not to vote at all is because the will of the people is not reflected by any politicians. There are a dozen issues most Americans agree on (legal weed, minimum wage) that our current politicians won't address because they are at odds with donors. I decided it wasn't worth participating in the political system again until our elected officials do what we want instead of their donors.

If the oligarchy wants to take over officially I can't stop them, but I don't have to participate either.