"People" and their "wants" or "enjoyments" are manufactured by culture (which is in turn now dominated by corporate propaganda). They are not fixed by nature. Any examination of the range of 'wants' in human history will inevitably conclude that, beyond a few corporeal basics, they are endlessly plastic. This is hard to see from the centres of Empire (especially highly mediated ones) where local and highly propagandised 'desires' are seen as 'natural'.
Agricultural societies are machines for creating large numbers of humans. In any democracy (or sufficiently responsive government) the kinds of persons that are created is a powerful determinant of what subsequently happens. Corporations choose to make consumer-humans. Many other types have existed, so ipso facto are possible.
I agree that agricultural societies are machines for creating large numbers of humans. That's why every agricultural society on the planet is working hard to grow and become wealthier. They're not infected by "corporate propaganda"; they know that subsistence farming sucks, and they want to join the rest of us in the post-agricultural future where food is so abundant nobody has to do it.
Bhutan historically pushed "Gross National Happiness" and such as part of a propaganda program to maintain their largely agricultural society against this pressure. Again, this absolutely did not work, and they're now setting up a proper capitalist center in Gelephu to try and convince young people that they don't need to leave the country to have a prosperous life. The precise details of what people want may vary from culture to culture, but there's very few where the average person would not like to have more and fancier stuff.
Whenever I see a spider indoors I try to remind myself that for every spider I see I am probably seeing 10 less of other bugs. And if the spider is unsuccessful in catching other bugs it will leave on its own
No. "Commitment" in corporate speak is a synonym for "absolute lack of intention". That's why corps 'commit' to reducing emissions, treating employees fairly, etc, ie. to all the things they will not do. But no suit 'commits' to making money. They just make money. It's just a superficial linguistic gesture. Shakespeare got it.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
This would be a relevant question in many nations, but it's a bit beside the point in the US. Violence is a deeply respected and loved core of the culture for its own sake. It's an end, not means. Nearly all the US's entertainment, culture and myths are built around a reverence for violence. Even political violence has been pretty much the norm through most of the US's history. Celebrated cases aside, there's been something of a lull since the mid 1970s, but if as now likely it increases again, this will be a boring old reversion to the US's norm.
Or to put it another way: a Pebble would cover more uses with a GPS. They're clearly not expensive nor necessarily profligate with battery. My now 5 year old Amazfit bip, which was cheap as chips, still gets 3 weeks of battery life with a daily gps-mapped run.
It reinforces ego. It's a common malady. An optional one (which isn't to say it's always easy to ditch given constant and insistent if irrational social reinforcement).
I’ve heard sentiments like this from most of the people I know who work helping the disadvantaged populations of our society. These are genuinely altruistic people, but they still get tired. For example, an addictions doctor was venting to me last week about how half of their patients don’t show up for appointments, and can’t even be located by the social workers who are employed to keep track of them.
Do you think those who optionally exercise the mental activity of making judgements of those behaviours are likely to suffer more or less burnout than those who choose not to? How useful an activity do you think making judgements of people you interact with is? Who is it useful to? The judge? The judged?
Not everyone exercises perfect control over the activities of their mind, and not every thought is carefully selected for optimum results before thinking it.
The point is just that even altruistic people, who one might presume are disinclined to such judgments, can find themselves making them after a time.
Besides, the doctor in my example was not even judging people, merely expressing exasperation at the inability for the resources expended to hit their intended targets. No one likes to feel like their work is meaningless, and getting paid (in public funds, no less) for patients who don’t show up might feel meaningless.
We agree on the empirical fact that many people generate suffering for themselves by encouraging an inner narrative of complaint about others' behavour.
If there's disagreement, it seems to be about whether or not this is necessary. I contend (along with thousands of wise narrators from just about every culture throughout human history) that it is not. This is just spiritual/ideological/psychological pragmatism (depending on your metaphysical orientation), and is intrinsically unrelated to altruism or perhaps ethics. Indeed someone holding a view that judgement of others is ethically or morally 'bad' merely shifts the target of the wasted mental judging-activity to their own putative ego.
Agricultural societies are machines for creating large numbers of humans. In any democracy (or sufficiently responsive government) the kinds of persons that are created is a powerful determinant of what subsequently happens. Corporations choose to make consumer-humans. Many other types have existed, so ipso facto are possible.