basic assumptions

[kareina]

For each of us there exists a few fundamental thoughts/beliefs/ideologies/feelings/opinions/etc. that are so ingrained we take them as a given until and unless someone or something causes us to step back and re-examine them. Often these points of view are so ingrained that we make other comments based on the assumption of these "facts" without specifying that they exist, nor what they are--we don't see the lack in that because these things are just the way the world *is*. Except that it is not. For each of these thoughts that one of us hold as so "right" that it goes without saying, someone else has a different perspective.

I discovered one of mine as a result of the writer's block reply post I did yesterday. When the question asked "should there be any restrictions", I understood "restrictions" to mean what I think of when I hear the word. To me a "restriction" is something that can only be self-imposed--it is a decision that an individual makes for themselves with the goal of obtaining a positive benefit. Examples include people who had a tendency to over-eat so decided to restrict their food intake with the goal of bringing their weight back down to a healthy limit. Or deciding that one likes to be awake whilst at work, and therefore setting a restriction as to how late one stays up at night.

While it is possible for someone else to suggest a restriction to another, unless the other decides of their own free will to adhere to it it will not make any difference (other than possibly causing some resentment). I see "laws" as different from "restrictions" in that "laws" are a list of things a government wishes its people to either refrain from doing or make a point of doing (depending on the law). The people are free to do them, or not, but there are consequences in the form of punishment (or possibly reward if they choose to do something that is on the list of laws requiring an action to be taken). This, to my mind, is very different from the consequences of not following a restriction you choose for your self. In the case of going on a "diet" choosing not to adhere to the restrictions results in not losing weight--it is something that simply happens, a direct cause and effect relationship. Laws, on the other hand, come with an indirect cause and effect. The punishment happens because the law was broken, but a different set of actions must be initiated to cause the punishment to come into being, it doesn't arise naturally out of the failure to follow it.

Therefore, when I wrote yesterday on the topic of overpopulation and the list of "restrictions" I think could make a difference in reducing the number of people on the planet, I simply listed the ideas that came to me, and didn't think to state the basic assumptions that are so ingrained in me that I hadn't noticed them--that in order to qualify as a restriction it cannot be imposed by an outside authority. The only way my suggestion could work would be if suddenly everyone on the planet woke up and said to themselves all at once that they would like to apply those restrictions to themselves.

Will this ever happen? No, not bloody likely. While everyone on the planet may agree that breathing is a good thing, I don't think that anything else is unanimous, or is ever likely to be. Solutions to problems that are dreamed up when doing a quick essay in response to a question (like the writer's block questions) are often not practical. However, I still think that should everyone suddenly decide to give my idea a try that the results, despite the negative consequences for some) would still be better than the famine/plague/pestilence/war that will happen as a result of overpopulation.

It has been interesting seeing how others react to my words, and to realize that many of you clearly have a very different meaning to the word "restrictions" than do I. No idea if explaining the basic assumptions on meaning and implications of that word for me helps ease any of the negative reaction others had to it when I used it or not, but it seemed worth sharing the ideas nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't have thought so much about how I see the word if others hadn't reacted strongly and so differently than do I.

Comments

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

Two Three things.

1.) We're animals. Animals breed. It's what we do.

2.) If educated (more intelligent?)people are the ones who choose not to breed, but people in general continue to do so, where does that leave us?

3.) You actually approached it very well. And explaining your understanding of restrictions helps.

You are an interesting and intriguing person to know. I'm glad to have met you, so to speak. Would love to be able to actually sit and chat.

[kareina.livejournal.com]

1) One of the things that many animals do--but not every individual of ever species breeds. We all intake such oxygen (or other gas? Plants like CO2, are there any "animals" that like something other than oxygen?), food, and water as is appropriate to our species, we all get rid of waste products after our bodies process the above and take what we need. Beyond that I don't think anything applies to "all" of any type of animal, even though there are many things that apply to "most".

2) A reply to one of the other comments linked to studies showing that more intelligent people have a lower birthrate than do people with lower intelligence. I wonder how much of that is related directly to reproductive strategies of the other species. There are two ways to try to guarantee a species continues into the future A) create lots and lots of low-maintenance young and a small percentage of them will survive to create another generation thereafter. B) create a very small number of young which are nurtured and cared for and invest much energy into ensuring that most of them survive to create another generation thereafter.

I wonder if the people studying the negative correlation of intelligence and birth rate have done any studies on the numbers of children surviving to adulthood from highly intelligent people vs those from people of low intelligence.

3) Thanks!

It would be fun. Somehow I don't think, from what I know of your current situation, that you will make it to Milan before my contract ends in December, so I'm guessing the earliest opportunity will be sometime after I move wherever I wind up next...

[merlyn-gabriel.livejournal.com]

the actual word "restrictions" is a total red flag for me. It's usually something other people impose on my life in some way and not something I impose on myself because if I choose to do or not to do something I don't see that as a restriction - I see that as my choice.

I don't restrict my calorie intake - I choose to eat less. If that makes sense.

just my weird perception, I guess.

[kareina.livejournal.com]

Isn't funny how the same word means such different things to different people? No one could ever successfully impose restrictions upon me. There is a small chance that the choices I make conform to what others would have me do (or not do), but it is always my choice, not something that comes from them.

[kahnegabs.livejournal.com]

What an intriguing conversation!

[duchessletitia.livejournal.com]

This is one of the really interesting things about LJ. I have gotten some very interesting takes on some of the things I have said. It is a great reminder that how I view the world is not how others view the world and I think it is really good to find out how others see it.

[kareina.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed! I am learning so much about myself and everyone else from my time here. I have not led a terribly introspective life, and often missed subtle social clues in person, but here,with everything spelled out for me...

I may or may not always agree with all of my friends here, but I nearly always learn something, even if nothing more than what they ate for dinner today.

[fjorlief.livejournal.com]

I read the previous post but didn't comment, not having the time to write what would have been a long enough reply to speak clearly. I was surprised, not by your assumptions, but by those of others that I'd not considered. Don't know why I would be surprised, part of my belief system is that people are not all the same. But I do get surprised by those who *don't* believe that, thereby putting me and my beliefs/choices into the category of freak.

There is an obvious difference in my mind, between self-chosen restrictions, other-human-imposed restrictions, and natural laws (such as gravity, magnetism, etc). Semantics is an art form that each of us practices differently.

Humans are part of the natural world, and as a species, are subject to the same natural laws. Populations peak and fall, as determined by the pressures and resources available in the environment. Any species that overgrows it's available space will have consequences, that is a natural law. How that will be expressed is what i see as the question being discussed here.

We, as individuals in that species, have the inherent drives of nature (seek pleasure, avoid pain) as modified by both our culture, subculture, and context, and by individual variation. How we express those drives has multitudinous variation, even within a small sample, much less expressed over billions of individuals. As far as we know we are the only species here on Earth that has the blessing/curse of self awareness, that thinks about what we do before/while doing it, and that has the possibility to create catastrophically large changes in the biosphere of the planet we live on, with results affecting not only the human species but the entire balance of life on Earth.

[kareina.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing--much of what you say here I had in the back of my mind when I wrote the above, but I don't think I managed to clearly convey those aspect of my thoughts.

[sismith42.livejournal.com]

It helped for me at least- I only saw the editied version, otherwise I would have done more than mutter something about how this sort of approach worked for the nazis, then said yay beth when her FB comment said much the same thing... another basic assumption on this topic that you haven't mentioned is how many people you think would be suitable on this planet, nor what sort of timescale you're looking at...

ps

[sismith42.livejournal.com]

I also think it'd be interesting to read what sort of assumptions you make professionally/are taken for granted in the metamorphic geo commuunity...

Re: ps

[kareina.livejournal.com]

In order to write about such assumptions applied to Geology, something would have to happen to draw my attention to them, I think.

[kareina.livejournal.com]

Of course, I was very confused at Beth's comment when she said, since it didn't make any sense at all in the context of what I thought I had said. I think I understand a bit better, but now find myself kind of offended that she'd hear something so very different than I thought I was saying when she's known me for all of her life.

[kareina.livejournal.com]

I haven't a clue what a sustainable number of people would be. I know that it is way, way less than we've got. Particularly as I feel there is value in having other species living on this planet. Wild ones, not just the ones that have been harnessed for companionship, food, or labour. Re-creating enough habitat for other species to thrive will take lots of time and a huge reduction in our numbers. Sorry I can't define huge in this case--I'm a geologist--it would take a biologist to do the calculations necessary to determine how much land and what types are needed to bring us a planet with plenty of biodiversity. I have no idea what sort of scientist it would take to then calculate the number of humans that would be "right" to provide an "acceptable" level of technology without doing damage to the planet. Probably would take a seriously inter-disciplinary project.