> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:48:11 +0200
> From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At 05:03 PM 26/10/04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> The second thing I'd like to discuss is "Is tolerance a
> >> positive, negative, or neutral meme?" and "Can tolerance be
> >> abused, or is it currently being abused, in our society?"
> >
> > As I just posted to the memetics list, I think tolerance and
> > other rational type memes are features of unstressed
> > societies, ones with rising income per capita and a rosy
> > future.
> >
> > Stressed human societies, where the future looks bleak, lose
> > tolerance memes in preparation for the warriors of the
> > society killing some alien tribe or internal identifiable
> > group.
> >
> > Dire business.
Interesting. Hmm.
Question: Can an unstressed society make itself into a stressed
society without an actual bleak future in sight? That is, can it
auto-suggest itself into a pressure cooker?
I'm thinking that the increase of more-or-less non-journalistic
personal broadcast methods (webpages, maillists, blogs,
talk-radio, cable perspective shows) and the weirdification of
journalistic bastions ("weirdification" being an inclusive term
for media consolidation, slipping of journalistic non-bias,
focus on ratings or personal fame over news) beginning in the
Clinton administration did just that.
The mixing of the private and public debate over politics and
other public issues (Whitewater, Lewinsky, OJ Trial) were
molehill issues promoted to mountain status in a relatively
unstressed society, based on two things: 1) the actions of all
participants first taken and then towards playing to the camera;
and 2) the wide-open broadcast channels of the developing
Communication Age.
(I'm tempted to make some sort of comment on the direct
association of entertainment with politics that hit high gear in
the Viet Nam era, but I don't have any solid ideas marshalled.)
So you end up with people foaming at the mouth over things that
really aren't their business in the larger sense -- or if some
element *is* partly their business, the topic gets wrapped up in
extraneous issues.
A murder trial or even an impeachment investigation -- while
definitely news -- should not consume the majority of the
attention of a society. But they did, and churned up great
rancor between internal factions.
When something actually threatening happened that pointed to a
real bleak future (9/11, of course), the pressure cooker
exploded.
Question: Does tolerance exist today, right here, right now?
My current answer: Sort of. However, there's an increasing need
to divide everything in public (and in some cases, private)
discourse into binary, black/white divisions.
Personal anecdote: During a recent visit with my father-in-law,
he wanted to know who I planned on voting for. I said Kerry,
despite not particularly liking him -- I just happen to prefer
him to Bush, who I see as a poor, dangerous President.
Over the course of the discussion, my f-i-l continually
mischaracterized me as a rabid supporter of Kerry. References to
"my guy" or "my candidate" and assuming that I agreed 5x5 with
absolutely everything that had ever come out of John Kerry's
mouth, and so forth. Even when presented with, "Dude, Kerry's
not 'my guy,' I don't agree with him on all his policies, I
think he made some youthful-and-extreme errors in judgement
thirty years ago, but I'm *not* voting for Bush" the
mischaracterizations continued. My f-i-l could simply not grasp
that I was not totally 100% behind Kerry in all things, amen.
He's not a dumb guy. He's not a nut. He's not a redneck. He's
not a pocket millionaire. He's just an average American citizen.
And shades of gray -- at least in the political sense -- no
longer exists for him.
> > If model is correct, then it provides a science based reason
> > to put shoes on the women (i.e., empower them and be sure
> > they have the technology to limit the number of children
> > they have).
So you're seeing population density as a part of determining
stress levels, then. And a decreased population as leading to
increased prosperity?
> Maybe increase in education would accomplish the same? When
> there is more education usually population numbers go down.
> Another nice side effect of education is that there usually is
> an increase in wealth. Not sure the men would be happy though.
> It would severely limit their powers.
Perhaps on the population control end, but I've found that for
every three people who gain increased tolerance through
increased education, there's one who does not broaden his/her
horizions but simply increases the power of their narrow,
rhetorical weapons.
I see education as a positive thing in general, though in
specific, it can be horribly negative. It's a tool, to be used
or misused by the weilder.
CU
=====
Chad Underkoffler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** Atomic Sock Monkey Press [ http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com ] **
** Live Journal [ http://www.livejournal.com/users/chadu/ ] **
"Pardon me while I have a strange interlude." -- Groucho Marx
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
