Everyone at all times with each generation have made the claim that the past is a Golden AGE.
I think in this case you might be right, though I do not think crime is the same as empathy.
THe problem that has developed is TOO MANY LAWS. All the problems if drugs are directly related to the fact that drugs have been made illegal.
The early 20thC in the US was marked by the prohibition of Alcohol. This did not work, and crime rose dramatically.
In the 1960 and ever since, a range of drugs have suffered from Prohibition, and as with the Prohibition of Alcohol as ALSO led to a massive increase in crime. This has led to the fact that the USA has more, by far, in Gaol per capita that any other country on earth.
The only lack of empathy here is the government’s lack of empathy for the needs of ordinary people; and the massive growth in the privatisation of the penal industry which has meant that powerful interests are keen to continues to make and increasingly large amount of money from prisons and provision of other related services.
Laws lead to crime. Repeal the law and crime drops. SImple!
I’m don’t think that people are more tolerant and understanding, but they generally support the fact that peoples experiences of their existence are varied, and that the issues you have mentioned have grown in the awareness of society. People were made more aware of the struggles and the pain of being unconventional, whether in their sexuality or regarding their designated role in society. We feel more with such people than before, which is to say, we do not rule out having sympathy with the avant-garde.
Having said that, there is the danger of eccentric people just forcing their individualism on others, which shows a lack of understanding for the fears of people. I always appeal for a mutual understanding, and mutual, rather than just one-sided empathy. The question is, how that would work out in practise, since the lack of empathy seems to influence this point as well. In an ideal world, appeals would perhaps work. In our world, we seem to be either for or against.
I see a huge problem in the so-called “sexual revolution” which was an extreme movement in the opposite direction to where society stood before and brought with it the same amount of distress that the prude behaviour had caused before. In the past there was as much perversion around as there is today, only people had to hide what they were doing and so it wasn’t as widespread. The attempt to bring sexuality out of the dark corner it was in led to an “over-sexed” society and created more problems for those weak souls who couldn’t control their body’s sensations – with an added problem: They could hardly avoid the aggravation of their sexual desires.
This is also a lack of empathy, since a kind of “liberty” was chosen without understanding what reaction it would cause. It is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
I think that the need for empathy goes further that the article covers, and it isn’t just empathy but attentiveness that I miss. People are just generally side-tracked all the time and not in the present moment.
When I read that people can only care ‘sincerely’ for X amount of people due to our past, all I think is bullshit.
Yeah, it may give us a PREDISPOSITION to only care for X amount of people, and only engage with X amount of people, but that doesn’t mean all people are only capable of caring for that many people. Anyone who asserts this, to my mind, is looking for a way to justify their lack of empathy. ‘I don’t give a fuck about you due to human nature’.
Lev mentioned people ignoring those who suffer in New York. I would say, not everyone does. There are people who stop in the street and help those they believe are in need.
We grow. We change. We adapt. Whilst scarcity and small community may have been relevant in our past, if it isn’t a factor in our current age (which I don’t believe it is, only artificial), then we can adapt and care for an entire species, ecosystem, life forms, planet - sincerely.
Our past actions in and of themselves aren’t standalone justification for our present actions. We endorsed slavery, engaged in human sacrifice and condemned science in our past. Is this just unavoidable human nature? Well, look at us today.
If you are indifferent to the suffering of others, that says more about you as an individual, rather than of your species.
Whilst I don’t share your general skepsis, I do doubt the sincerity of care expressed by many people, since we tend to be unable to cope with the idea of caring for so many people.
There are a lot of people who give (sometimes a lot of) money to charities and ignore the people next door who just need a friendly face for ten to fifteen minutes. I too, who work in an old peoples home, have to manage the amount of empathy I can afford to expend, so that I am not exhausted when I get home. But it is what I said earlier, if people were more attentive, we would be better off.
Slavery, human sacrifice, science, are all beliefs not instinct. As younger generations adapt to cramped living space there is every chance empathy will increase due to need, self preservation.
Right now a city full of millions of bodies is beyond our herd/pack instinct. An earth worth of humans demands even more. Instinct limits, self preservation limits. We are not hive creatures, if we were then things would be different, there is no individuality in hives, there is in herd, pack and even flock animals. Individuality might be considered a cornerstone to this issue.
you are right with that what you wrote in your posts here.
I am working with old people as well, since a few years also intensive care, and I suppose you know how much of life-philosophy you can learn from them.
I think you might as well measure the degree of empathy in a society by the way it treats its old people.
Here, in the ‘western world’ they are either invisible or ‘in the way’, but good enough to suck all their money out of them.
I feel sorry with all those brainwashed people who really think that they are more ‘free’ now than they would have been fifty years ago.
The second best job I ever had was in a nursing home. I was 15, it changed my perspective which I think was my stepmom’s goal for getting me that job. I have thought that perhaps all youth be required to work with seniors but, it might not change anything or that many immature attitudes.
I do not think you can measure empathy with the way society treats its old people.
It is far more complex than that.
Amerindians used to leave their old people out in the snow when they were too old to move on. I do not think this is a measure of a lack of empathy but a positive measure of practicality.
My grandmother was never “in the way” nor was she “invisible”; neither did she have any money. What she had was the love she shared with two generations of (grand)children, who were sad to see her die.
Nice to hear from someone with a similar experience to myself Mithus, and I agree that generally there is a large degree of what you described, but it is only occaisionally that we experience this in German homes, but it shows that it is going on in the shadows. Society is for young people and old people do tend to get in the way of what is deemed progress - which is then a question of dignity. Progress is taking us down a road that the studies by NASA have shown will destroy us in the end. Is it faulty to listen to older people telling us to slow down?
Lev, just because in times of dire straits there was only that option to survive, which will have been “the done thing” in those days, it doesn’t make it a precedence for today. That is a very lazy logic and a sign that the lack of empathy is widespread. In the face of the demographic development of societies all over the world, it could end up being made policy at some time, and being of an age which brings me exactly into the peak of that development, I’m not particularly keen on the chances of soyent green ending up being people at all.
Empathy remains unchanged.
What we see is cultural boundaries changing, and social groupings being extended.
Anthropologists have a series of “magic numbers” by which they characterise social group size. The larger the number the greater potential for disinterest, then uninterested, and then dysinterest to characterise one’s understanding of “others”.
Ideas can overcome this ‘otherness’ and cause us to empathise with people so remote that not only would it have been unlikely to have happened in the past but actually impossible; whilst at the same time we come into contact with far too many to show direct empathy due to urban living.
I do not think the net amount is dropping; it’s just that we come into contact with more people than we have evolved to cope with.
Bob, I didn’t refer to German homes with that what I wrote. I saw a few in which I wouldn’t mind living when I’m old. The point is that I will not be able to afford empathic care by then.
Adenauers “two-generation-contract” (designed in the Fifties to make sure that the working generation pays into a pension-fund to provide the old-age pension of the previous generation) based on the idea that there will always be ‘enough’ children. That’s not the case anymore. Birthrate is very low, except in immigrant-familys who mostly live on welfare already (and thus not contribute to the fund). A the same time the amount of old people increase rapidly. This will be an enormous problem in a not so far away future, but I suppose I don’t have to tell you that. An empathic society ( or those who organize a society=state) would care about that, but reality around here just shows the opposite: ‘we’ don’t count, because nothing but profit counts. So old people will be in fact ‘in the way’. Instead of solving this problem, society ( or the state, I’d rather call them “they”) does its best to push women into professions to make sure they don’t get children, and the discussion about child murder (newspeak: afterbirth-abortion) gets already implanted in peoples brains.
Thus I can extend my statement: You can measure the degree of empathy in a society by the way it treats its old people and its children.
The so called „sexual revolution“ is a means to an end. But does the end always justify the means? And what is the end (about) ? Well, this end is anarchy, chaos, war, civil war caused by too much „humanised“ „will to power“ („Wille zur Macht“ - Friedrich W. Nietzsche), by to much „civilisation“, especially by so called „individualism“, „socialism“, „welfare“, „revolutions“ (incl. „sexual revolutions“, „feminism“, „genderism“, „gayism“, „pederastyism“, etc.), etc…
This is my experience. I see the reduction in empathy as an effect of a more widespread withdrawal from reality. No one is here. They are texting, surfing, talking shallowly to someone not present, ipoding and so on. As a cyclist I notice a serious change in people’s awareness of where their bodies are and of the people around them. It is not just the use new media, it is also stress, overfull Schedules, and I Think also, the existence of wireless Technologies and the effects on the body of these whether in use or not. Cell phones, for example, mess up the frequences of the EM fields of the brain. People seem to me more and more in a Daze. They are not aware of themselves as much, which makes empathy even more problematic than it was Before.
How else to describe the state of affairs but through personal anecdotes and vignettes? This is what happened to me today when i took my grandson to little league. I left, hopefully leaving an ok impression, but on our way home, my grandson took note of a baseball which landed outside the fence surrounding the field. He asked me to stop while he got out and picked up the ball and brought it inside the car. Now ordinarily, no one would rush to judgement, however i felt a man with whom i have not been able to establish anywhere near what they would consider a rapport, i saw my grandson bring the ball inside the car, rather then throwing it back to the field. The days of handshake deals based on trust are over, but i made it a point to return the ball the next time there is a meet. Rush to judgement underlines the more nebulous concept of empathy, and in these days of snooping, nothing is excluded as sacred or off limits. There is very little room for error, and thereby the benefit of doubt afforded to other people is shrinking. Sympathy is the handmaiden of trust, and critics are in far more i n abundance than, creators. Signs abound everywhere, and we are fast becoming untrustworthy, keeping distances, among friends, relatives and coworkers at at a good arm’s length. How would You think about the above scenario?
I observe society and how it acts… it’s a little hobby of mine don’t ya know
For instance… the neighbourhood where I live is notorious for this kind of bahaviour as in the op… an observation which is a valid (and often affirmed) one.
Here’s MORE empirical evidence - see the referred studies. Rather Amazing you could say there was no evidence when you were incorrectly, for the most part, critical of the evidence presented.
Lev,
I’ve had you on ignore, but peeked, and I find it is not Worth it.
I will ignore you from here on out.
