Good of you to misinform me about a subject I hold a Masters degree in. You are quite literally wrong in everything you are saying to a breathtaking level and have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt you have no idea what you are talking about.
I do not say that lightly, if you had given one reason to suspect you have any expertise or knowledge whatsoever I would be much more receptive.
A specialist training in a given field doesn't mean you will be all-knowledgeable in the said field.
At best, you might be aware of a minuscule amount of information available for the simple reason that you are not a computer.
Quite literally it would take you well over a lifetime to read everything and anything in just one field, considering that new information is literally coming out every day - and keep in mind that a lot of what universities teach to students can frequently be outdated or just plain wrong information that's been widely accepted in that particular society.
I find it amusing that people seemingly ignore cultural bias playing a huge part in education.
Also, I might have been more receptive to your response had you replied to my suggestion to grab a look at lectures of dr. Robert Sapolksy and dr. Gabor Mate who actually study human behavior and how environment impacts people.
And, I've actually given you names and viable explanations in my replies based on science, you on the other hand seem to have provided mere conjecture and no valid evidence beyond repeating what is 'culturally accepted' (which is very different from things that are scientifically verified).
Furthermore... I did not misinform you.
Which psychologists actually look for the system as a causal factor of aberrant behavior?
I have yet to meet to meet any.
The aberrant behavior (as they classify it) is sought to be 'corrected' or 'managed' so the individual can be adjusted to function in a society that drove them to behave in the manner they did.
How much more evidence do you need before you realize that society is demented?
We torture and kill over 70 billion animals annually for the simple reason that at one time in our history we didn't know any better, and it turned into a highly profitable endeavor over time - all the while most people who also consume animals for food say 'I love animals'.
I mean, you have to be rather selective in your reasoning to let people get away with saying something like that... and if you do that, you are only finding excuses/justifications that validate the current system, which didn't do a good job at creating a critical thinker in a person.
We pollute the environment by throwing massive amounts of trash into the oceans, piling up a landfill literally the size of a continent which is contributing to coral reef bleaching and acidification (that in turn contribute to massive die-offs of marine life).
We extract fresh materials from the Earth itself even though we had the ability for decades to harvest raw materials from trash/landfills, convert them into base elements and reconstitute them into something else.
We could have repaired the damage we caused to the Earth multiple times over by now.
Instead of doing more with less, we do more with more.
We force people to work for a living even though there is 0 reason to do so in a day and age of automation, except for trying to keep a dying/crumbling system work for as long as possible (which at this point is only doing more damage than good - see climate change, huge levels of disparity between the rich and poor, not to mention animal holocaust, etc.) because most people who are 'in charge' have no ability to think beyond the current system and produce working solutions.
We brainwash people into not being able to think for themselves, to question anything, or to be problem solvers.
We force kids through at least 12 years of mandatory 'education' which is akin to a prison, and generates specialists who have literally almost no knowledge of the world beyond what they were taught to perceive through their own limited worldview.
We create stressful environmental conditions that profoundly impact people in every aspect of their life and then we conveniently sweep them aside for the ridiculous mythology of 'human nature' which persisted to this day and age because people are too ignorant to educate themselves in basics of neuroscience and epigenetics... simply because there is an apparent 'vilification' of science (at least in some parts of the world).
Yes. It is. In so far as anything in any form of psychology, behavioural biology or social science discipline can possibly be said to be absolutely nailed down by overwhelming empirical evidence, this is it. The scientific method relies on perpetual doubt, but some things really don't allow for much wriggle room and this is one such thing. The sexual instinct (at least in broad terms) is literally built into us on a genetic level and good luck finding a biologist who would dispute that.
Forgive me, but any self-respecting scientist would not entertain the ridiculous notion that 'instinct' exists... not in this day and age at least.
I already provided a scientific counter argument for this 2 or three times before, and you STILL persist in using 'instinct' as if its somehow a viable premise.
Humans have no instincts... they (just like animals) simply react to external stimulus which is dependent on environmental conditions and how sensitive they are to them.
Birds migrate due to changes in the Earth's magnetic field and they are sensitive to these changes.
Well established scientific fact - no instinct involved.
You on the other hand are not giving me anything of the kind.
You rely on 'instinct' to define how the process works while completely ignoring the underlying biological responses that occur as a direct result of environmental influence, and how these responses are completely absent in individuals that are not in the same or similar environmental conditions (and to be frank, most Humans focus on a minute number of environmental conditions, completely ignoring there are millions upon millions of little things interacting with our perceptions and affecting our behavior, not to mention expression of certain genes that might affect behavior).
Your explanation is quite literally in support of the idea that says 'all women have a motherly instinct'... and yet, we've had numerous examples for Human females and other animal females abandoning their kids without a second thought... and also, some animal females eating their young.
The notion that 'instict' of any kind exists on a genetic level is preposterous.
We are talking about behavior that is directly influenced by the environment.
You have give no evidence whatsoever for your claims, in fact you've done a really quite strange thing in that you've used the words "scientific" and "evidence" whilst actually offering neither, possibly hoping no one would notice. You've quite literally declared "this would happen and that's scientific" and expected that to be enough. It isn't.
And yet, there is evidence to support my claims and I provided the names which you could have researched (such as dr. Gabor Mate and Robert Sapolsky)... you on the other hand did nothing of the kind.
At this point, we're actually going round in circles not seemingly accomplishing anything really.
[/quote]
One cannot offer evidence about a purely hypothetical scenario, only about that which is observed. As the future seen in trek is purely hypothetical, there is absolutely no way of making the absurdly confident statements you have done, especially given that they fly in the face of every scrap of evidence from any real world society ever observed.
[/quote]
Since Trek historically drew from real life, I was providing real life observations of science on the subject matter.
You seemingly ignoring this is not my problem... it seems to be yours.
Also, no 'real world society ever observed' actually got rid of money, nor did it expose EVERYONE to relevant general education, critical thinking or problem solving.
Trek had limitations in it for the simple reason it was written for the current day audiences by writers who projected many current day behaviors onto characters of the future that grew up under completely different confitions... and in case you didn't notice, the more a Trek show progressed, it consistently degraded into writers projecting real life absurdities and behaviors on a society that was supposed to be a polar opposite (in which such behaviors simply wouldn't emerge because there would be no basis for it).
Actually those behaviors are more consistent with people who did NOT grow up in Federation space... or in cultures that lived under relatively primitive conditions.
For that matter they fly in the face of the trek universe as shown on screen. The canon quite rightly shows crime, greed, empire building, political machinations, human rights abuses, mental health problems and sexual jealousy within the federation. These things are all human concerns and nothing in history, the social sciences or biology would suggest they are open to being eradicated by social engineering. Many politicians, political theorists and philosophers have tried down the years, with no success whatsoever, to eliminate crime. One can reduce it, but nothing exists to suggest that extending reduction to eradication it is even within the realms of possibility.
I'm really quite bewildered by how you can claim to have some genuine background in social sciences and not realise this.
Which society in the history of Humanity actually tried social engineering on the level I suggested?
None.
For the simple reason that no general population of ANY society (that we know of) has been exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving.
You cannot simply change a society without educating people into how it works and then transpose them into that society expecting things will magically change.
If you want actual change, you need to change both the environment and education on a massive level (something which hasn't been attempted before).
There are various studies today talking about human behavior and documenting how changes ensue due to environmental changes, and for some reason, you want to stick to an outdated way of thinking that was described due to lack of understanding a hundred years ago?
You are quite ...'sure' of yourself to claim that we cannot eliminate crime, greed, etc.
Actually, that's the biggest unsubstantiated claim that I heard to date.
You ignoring the socio-economic system and lack of general relevant education and critical thinking as causes of these problems is exactly what's wrong... you just don't think its the problem.
Politicians minimizing crime and greed for instance is a direct result of the limitations living in a monetary system.
They can increase the minimum wage for example, expand on social rights, etc... but all of these measures only tackle the SYMPTOMS... not the underlying cause.
With the socio-economic system going unchanged at large, it will continue to produce problems... that's why you will only be able to minimize problems and not completely eradicate them.
Look at people proposing to double the minimum wage in the USA. It can certainly help yes, but that still doesn't solve the problem of people who cannot find jobs, and those that will be inevitably displaced (or who have been displaced) due to automation.
We live in a society that forces you to pay for basic necessities of life... and yet, re-education costs money (frequently, a lot of it).
How is a person on a minimum wage for example supposed to do this when most of their wages go on food, shelter, heating, clothing, electricity and medical care?
Also, who or what is going to guarantee a person re-employment after re-education? There's 0 guarantee for the simple reason it is already easier, faster and cheaper to automate various newly invented jobs than to hire people for them - and this trend will only increase.
Government re-education programs are an absurdity... they send a limited number of people to get re-educated whilst not having enough jobs to go around, all the while said people need to satisfy numerous conditions beforehand.
Or, most people would not want to work in such jobs because they are something people loathe.
And right there you have this entire stupidity of society forcing people to work for a living... they force you to work anything for mere survival. How is this NOT to create mental health issues? How is this NOT going to create a rebel mentality within a person refusing to accept to work on something they hate?
What... you think its an accident that similar problems keep popping up over and over again throughout history?
Its not an accident... the socio-economic system was never changed.
It was amended on a few occasions, but the core aspects (such as the notion of people in power, leaders, usage of money, and social stratification) were never altered.
