In light of the massacre in Virginia....

[_Fortigurn]

First, Fort, anyone who looks to the US for "moral guidance" is sadly misguided and ignorant of history. I love my country, but I'm no fool.

I wasn't speaking specifically of the US, but any society which produces people such as this.

However, given religion's moral history, I wouldn't view religion as a source of moral guidance, either. Both the US and religion tend to talk in self-righteous terms, while often engaging in behavior that seems quite malicious to outsiders.

Try 'the moral history of some religions', or 'the moral history of some groups which claim to follow one moral system but practice another'. I follow a religious moral system, and it does just fine. It doesn't result in killing anyone, ensures an absolute disestablishmentarianism, and prevents Christians from imposing their moral will on society.

Second, on the why - you know my stance on human evolution. I believe human beings evolved in a small tribal setting. We knew everyone in our tribe. We depended on one another. The practice of reciprocal altruism in such a small setting, where everyone was known, helped ensure a certain degree of mutually beneficial behavior.

Today, we live in an alien world that we are still may not be adapted to, in terms of our instinctual behavior. VTech, like many other major universities, is so large that it's a little city on its own. Students can become faceless. Human beings desperately need social interaction. We evolved with these instincts, because they helped our ancestors survive and reproduce with a higher degree of success. In addition, larger societies allow for anonymous bad behavior. You're unknown to many, so reciprocal altruism loses its force. You're not being observed by those who know you and will remember your behavior for future interaction. We see the same phenomenon on the internet, and it's been reported on ad nauseum as the reason large cities are ruder than small towns. Anonymity breeds bad behavior.

Yes, I agree with this. This is my theory also. I believe that the industrial revolution was catastrophically destructive to social behaviour, and the only hope for the future is to decentralise and reduce our dependency on the industrialist model. Unfortunately human greed is stronger than human altruism, so this will never happen and our societies will continue to increase in viciousness.

Under the capitalist model (and believe me, I love the benefits of capitalism, don't get me wrong), other individuals in society are necessarily dehumanised and treated as competitors for existing resources. The result is an inherent conflict between societal members, which is conditioned from a very early age. We are trained by society to conflict with each other, and taught that this is the correct way to behave. Combine this with 'human rights', and every other member of society becomes my natural enemy. This is not the basis for a productive society.

So I think the result of this is that some people engage more freely in bad behavior, like bullying or other belittling behaviors. If a person does not socialize easily, is a "loner", and then is subjected to repeated bad behavior by anonymous others, that person is operating under conditions that feel seriously threatening to survival and reproductive success, and may lash out.

I quite agree.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Uh, interesting discussion and writing guy and gal...but perhaps a new thread on the subject is in order?

Respectably,

Bond

[_Fortigurn]

Perhaps, though the discussion is directly related to the topic at hand.

[_Bond...James Bond]

In that case...

I don't really know how we can stop some people from falling through the cracks. Some people have mental illnesses that will go untreated, causing these types of acts. Some people will be nurtured into believing things, leading to these types of acts. I don't know how you can gurantee everyone gets the right sort of education/nurturing/medicine/whatever to keep these types of things from happening.

Has a motive been found concerning why this guy shot all the people at Va Tech?

[_beastie]

The current speculation is that he was the victim of bullying and social isolation, much like the Columbine killers. He left behind a note and writings that indicate something along those lines. In addition, his first victim was a female who may have been an ex-girlfriend, although that may have been his imagination rather than reality. He engaged in stalking behavior, so it may have been a relationship that existed only in his mind, the evidence is not certain at this point.

[_Fortigurn]

In that case...

I don't really know how we can stop some people from falling through the cracks. Some people have mental illnesses that will go untreated, causing these types of acts. Some people will be nurtured into believing things, leading to these types of acts. I don't know how you can gurantee everyone gets the right sort of education/nurturing/medicine/whatever to keep these types of things from happening.

There's an important difference between 100% guarantees of universal safety, and risk minimization. While there are cars and people, there will be car accidents. But a social environment can be constructed which minimizes these accidents.

We have built societies which maximize these kinds of people, rather than minimizing them. There is something fundamentally sick and wrong about modern Western society. Other societies do not suffer from this evil. Even the 'primitive' societies populated by those we would deride as simple minded and ignorant mud people who only recently came down from the trees do better than this. I remain unconvinced that modern Western society is a significant advance over certain pre-industrial societies.

[_Bond...James Bond]

There's an important difference between 100% guarantees of universal safety, and risk minimization. While there are cars and people, there will be car accidents. But a social environment can be constructed which minimizes these accidents.

We have built societies which maximize these kinds of people, rather than minimizing them. There is something fundamentally sick and wrong about modern Western society. Other societies do not suffer from this evil. Even the 'primitive' societies populated by those we would deride as simple minded and ignorant mud people who only recently came down from the trees do better than this. I remain unconvinced that modern Western society is a significant advance over certain pre-industrial societies.

I would say we are pretty good at risk minimization. The fact that a school shooting is a shocking event rather than an everyday event should be evidence to the fact that most people are decent. Frankly I'm suprised there aren't school shootings all the time in America (my only reference point) where:

1) many people can get their hands on guns rather easily (2nd Amendment and all that jazz)
2) people are materialistic and exclusionary/cliquish (part of the capitalistic rat race to be better than their neighbor)
3) free speech allows for most anything to be said (if not in school then outside of school settings when kids get together)

Our society and culture leads to:

1) the ostrocism of certain "have nots" by the "haves" (exclusion and division of society by race, economic status, fashion, religion, whatever)
2) the ability for the "haves" to pick on the "have nots" (free speech, particularly in the early years up through college)
3)the ability for the "have nots" to become armed (gun access)...and well take their "revenge" for whatever slights (real or imagined) on the "haves".

I don't know how we can get out of this habit beyond:

1) control of guns and explosives (or anything that can be turned into a weapon...cars etc)
2) limiting free speech
3) a de-emphasis on the exclusionary acts. (which may be impossible in light of religious, ethnic, and political differences in America, let alone economic)

Numbers 2 and 3 (free speech and capitalism) are particular hallmarks of liberal western society....so the question is, "what's the best for the most people?" because I don't believe we could ever eliminate the social inequalities that lead to the exclusion of some groups of people. People are smart enough to realize who has the abilities and skills to pay for the best land and technology...I don't think we can ever get out of it in an advanced complex state society. I think the best we can do is to do what's best for the most people.

Hope my ramblings made some sense,

Bond

[_Fortigurn]

I would say we are pretty good at risk minimization. The fact that a school shooting is a shocking event rather than an everyday event should be evidence to the fact that most people are decent.

My point is that these events shouldn't be happening at all. Never. Not even once. They did not used to happen. Other societies exist in which they never happen. They have been happening more frequently over the years. This is not good risk minimization. At best it is damage control.

Frankly I'm suprised there aren't school shootings all the time in America (my only reference point) where:

1) many people can get their hands on guns rather easily (2nd Amendment and all that jazz)
2) people are materialistic and exclusionary/cliquish (part of the capitalistic rat race to be better than their neighbor)
3) free speech allows for most anything to be said (if not in school then outside of school settings when kids get together)

Yes, I agree.

Our society naturally leads to:

1) the ostrocism of certain "have nots" by the "haves" (exclusion and division of society by race, economic status, fashion, religion, whatever)
2) the ability for the "haves" to pick on the "have nots" (free speech, particularly in the early years up through college)
3)the ability for those who have been picked on to become armed (gun access).

Good points.

I don't know how we can get out of this habit beyond:

1) control of guns and explosives (or anything that can be turned into a weapon...cars etc)
2) limiting free speech
3) a de-emphasis on the materialistic exclusionary lifestyle.

Numbers 2 and 3 (free speech and capitalism) are particular hallmarks of liberal western society....so the question is, "what's the best for the most people?" because I don't believe we could ever eliminate the social inequalities that lead to the exclusion of some groups of people. People are smart enough to realize who has the abilities and skills to pay for the best land and technology...I don't think we can ever get out of it in an advanced complex state society. I think the best we can do is to do what's best for the most people.

In Australia, where I come from, free speech is not protected by law. People have no constitutional right to free speech. I think that's a great idea. I believe that the social issues of psychological isolation and dehumanization mentioned by beastie and I are more significant than the control of guns and explosives, and limiting free speech. I do believe that a de-emphasis on the materialistic exclusionary lifestyle is part of the solution.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I would say we are pretty good at risk minimization. The fact that a school shooting is a shocking event rather than an everyday event should be evidence to the fact that most people are decent.

My point is that these events shouldn't be happening at all. Never. Not even once. They did not used to happen. Other societies exist in which they never happen. They have been happening more frequently over the years. This is not good risk minimization. At best it is damage control.

I agree. These things shouldn't happen.

When do you think these things weren't happening...before complex society or going back to more egalitarian times?

I don't know how we can get out of this habit beyond:

1) control of guns and explosives (or anything that can be turned into a weapon...cars etc)
2) limiting free speech
3) a de-emphasis on the materialistic exclusionary lifestyle.

Numbers 2 and 3 (free speech and capitalism) are particular hallmarks of liberal western society....so the question is, "what's the best for the most people?" because I don't believe we could ever eliminate the social inequalities that lead to the exclusion of some groups of people. People are smart enough to realize who has the abilities and skills to pay for the best land and technology...I don't think we can ever get out of it in an advanced complex state society. I think the best we can do is to do what's best for the most people.

In Australia, where I come from, free speech is not protected by law. People have no constitutional right to free speech. I think that's a great idea. I believe that the social issues of psychological isolation and dehumanization mentioned by beastie and I are more significant than the control of guns and explosives, and limiting free speech. I do believe that a de-emphasis on the materialistic exclusionary lifestyle is part of the solution.

I think free speech is taken to far in America myself. Just because I have the "right" to say (for example) the "N" word doesn't mean I should. Why shouldn't I? Because I think it's a mean word that would show myself to be ignorant. I make a free choice not to use racial slurs because I've been nurtured to think they are wrong. Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom to be stupid should be curtailed as much as possible (in my honest opinion).

I think the problem in America is that we are such a diverse country. We aren't a homogenous population religiously or racially/ethnically (which are often the most obvious...especially skin color) and until we start thinking of ourselves as humans rather than "African-American baptist" and "Mexican-American Catholic" and "Japanese-American atheist" and "Anglo-American Lutheran" and all the combinations we will always be in the situation of being exclusionary to the others. It's natural we use our eyes to gather the most information...rather than our ears. If we'd listen to each other rather than screaming at the same time we could probably kind common ground, but some people never will be able to.

More so, our form of government in theory wants to make us embrace each other as fellow countrymen, when in reality we may have nothing in common except for living in the same general area. We will always have these major rifts in America until we interbreed into one ethnic group (which could take god knows how many centuries) that believes one way spiritually (another almost impossibility). Even then we still have political and economic inequalities to deal with. So right now...we are the melting pot, and will be for a long time to come.

I'm not really up on Australias ethnic and religious makeup so you may have the same problem.

[Anonymous]

As to dehumanization:

I don't know that we'll ever be able to get out of this either. People living in cities of more than a few thousand will never meet everyone in their community. Often the majority will just be nameless faces. I don't know how this can ever be changed or how to get some people to think of those faces as humans with lives behind them.

Furthermore, I don't think our leaders want us to (for military reasons). It's alot easier for a US private from ALabama to think of an "enemy" as just a face rather than Mike, father of 3, owner of a business, married to Sarah. This dehumanization in my opinion goes back further than the Industrial Revolution (with apologies to beastie) and has its roots in the apparently natural desire for man to conquer his fellow man to gain wealth and territory. It's alot easier for soldiers to kill each other when they're just faces holding spears rather than actual people.

I do thing the industrial revolution further exacerbated the situation by making people faceless cogs in the economic machine (making people both faceless for a military/defense standpoint and from an economic standpoint). It removed the identity of being a farmer in a certain area around a bunch of other longstanding farmers to being faces at a factory somewhere. The loss of economic identity and the loss of the community has fed this problem and multiplied upon it.

Just my opinion,

Bond