Why is everyone so afraid of death?

If humanity is annihilated, that would stop progress by definition, but that's not the issue. The issue is this: barring human extinction (which environmental degradation is unlikely to bring about), can progress be stopped by human nature? If history is any guide, the answer is "no."

This is irrelevant precisely because humanity has never possessed the capacity for self-annihilation that it does now. This has not been made possible until the modern era, so using history as a guide is faulty. It's a little difficult to initiate a species-wide extinction with technology that consists of slings and arrows and irrigation ditches.

 
I highly doubt that environmental problems will lead to nuclear annihilation in this century.
 

We already spend more on healthcare than on war.

I cited war in regards to the self- stultifying propensity of human nature, but in terms of spending I was speaking of military spending versus medical research spending. You have turned this into healthcare and war spending.

This is a difference between disease research spending versus overall healthcare spending just as there is a difference war expense and general global military spending. Each is a subcategory of the other.

 
Okay, it seems both of us were comparing apples with oranges to a certain extent. If you're interested only in medical research, the correct comparison would be between medical and defense research. I don't know the exact amounts involved in that comparison. However, I do know that spending on medical research over the past several decades has been in the trillions. I also know that healthcare spending is much higher than military spending.

 

http://www.informati...lar-o-gram-2013
 

The fact that we spend more on healthcare than on war may indicate a certain degree of social progress.

Here we go again. I was specifically talking a disease research, not healthcare spending. There is a distinction.

Anyways, even citing "healthcare" spending within a profit-based system as evidence of an altruistically progressing species is hardly convincing. The exorbitant costs of modern healthcare that have inflated expenditure statistics are more of a reflection of insatiable corporate greed than humanity's selfless outpouring of support.

How much money do we spend on non-profit humanitarian programs. How much does the world spend and anti-poverty and anti-hunger programs.

When non-profit humanitarian spending exceeds global military spending and the self-seeking profiteering of the private sector...maybe that would signify evidence of real human progress.

 
Even if the cost of for-profit healthcare (which is mostly concentrated in the United States) is excluded, non-profit healthcare spending still dwarfs military spending.
 
Progress---including the social kind---doesn't necessarily depend on altruism. I'm more interested in the ends (i.e., progress), rather than in the means (i.e., profit vs non-profit vs humanitarian spending).

Edited by Florin Clapa, 21 May 2014 - 08:24 PM.

 

If you're opposed to extending life because it involves suffering, then why are you alive now? Why not just die?

If you remember what I said in the first post: "We are already alive, so we might as well try our best to limit suffering..."

It sounds like you're having your cake and eating it, too. 

What exactly is the cake that I am having and eating too?

If we go back to the original thrust of the topic, it was about the fear of death. Is the urge in the direction of wanting to extend life indefinitely driven more by a desire to prolong the pleasurable experiences of life or by a fear of nonexistence. I would contend that it is driven more the the latter though not self-acknowledged and sublimated into the "rationalization" of the former.

Getting back to death as non-existence, the end of experience: what is there to be afraid of?

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain

 

 

Interesting quote. I've actually never seen it before, although I've used the same reasoning when talking with people about their fear of death. Anyway, my cake reference was about you having something both ways. I read the OP, but I still thought it seemed like a contradictory position. Either life's worth living, or it isn't. If you (not you, but somebody) want to extend your life, it's worth living, and conversely, if you don't, then it isn't, in which case why are you alive right now?

I highly doubt that environmental problems will lead to nuclear annihilation in this century.

Environmental problems inducing nuclear anniliation? That is not even remotely close to what I said.

I also know that healthcare spending is much higher than military spending.

I have already remarked numerous times that I am not specifically talking about healthcare. We are really not getting anywhere.
 

Progress---including the social kind---doesn't necessarily depend on altruism. I'm more interested in the ends (i.e., progress), rather than in the means (i.e., profit vs non-profit vs humanitarian spending).

Progress driven by profits doesn't have the same sustainability because there are different goals attached. Capitalism itself is entirely unsustainable and any system of social progress built on that system is unreliable in the longterm for that very reason.

I do think that the means are important. Concentrating exclusively on ends invariably leads to the rationalization and justification of any means. Hopefully we all know where that has historically led? I just don't feel that this constitutes real progress, but I admittedly have more of a complex and nuanced version than you.

As far as environmental degradation, I have been maintaing that the human species is in trouble. I do not think the planet will stop functioning or supporting life but there is a plethora of evidence that it is the end of the line for our species, not to mention all of the innumerable species we have already driven into extinction. There are an ever increasingly large number of scientists and scholars that support this because the evidence is there and it is quite overwhelming for those that don't shy away from it. Clive Hamilton, the eminent eco-philosopher and author of "requiem for a species", considers it too late for humanity. I suggest you read "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert.

It seems you are unaware of the gravity of the situation. I don't blame you, most people are. Those that aren't tend to be in some form of denial.

In ultimate terms, does it matter that humanity is likely going extinct? No, not at all. It is just that this process of extinction is likely to be very painful for most of the humanity. It is suffering that is the ultimate tragedy.

Edited by Soma, 22 May 2014 - 01:31 PM.

I highly doubt that environmental problems will lead to nuclear annihilation in this century.

Environmental problems inducing nuclear anniliation? That is not even remotely close to what I said.

Okay, how about this: it is unlikely that humanity will be annihilated within this century by nuclear weapons.
 

I also know that healthcare spending is much higher than military spending.

I have already remarked numerous times that I am not specifically talking about healthcare. We are really not getting anywhere.

 
I've already suggested that you need to compare medical research spending with defence research spending.

The reason I mentioned healthcare again is that military spending needs to be compared to healthcare spending, not to medical research, in order to get a fair comparison.
 

Progress---including the social kind---doesn't necessarily depend on altruism. I'm more interested in the ends (i.e., progress), rather than in the means (i.e., profit vs non-profit vs humanitarian spending).

Progress driven by profits doesn't have the same sustainability because there are different goals attached. Capitalism itself is entirely unsustainable and any system of social progress built on that system is unreliable in the longterm for that very reason.

 
I didn't suggest that progress can only be driven by capitalism.
 
At any rate, perhaps automation will render capitalism obsolete.
 

I do think that the means are important. Concentrating exclusively on ends invariably leads to the rationalization and justification of any means.

I didn't suggest that we should always focus on the ends.
 

As far as environmental degradation, I have been maintaing that the human species is in trouble. I do not think the planet will stop functioning or supporting life but there is a plethora of evidence that it is the end of the line for our species, not to mention all of the innumerable species we have already driven into extinction. There are an ever increasingly large number of scientists and scholars that support this because the evidence is there and it is quite overwhelming for those that don't shy away from it. Clive Hamilton, the eminent eco-philosopher and author of "requiem for a species", considers it too late for humanity. I suggest you read "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert.

There's no scientific consensus or plausible mechanism which suggests that environmental degradation is likely to annihilate humanity in this century. Nor is it likely to significantly reduce medical research.
 

In ultimate terms, does it matter that humanity is likely going extinct? No, not at all. It is just that this process of extinction is likely to be very painful for most of the humanity. It is suffering that is the ultimate tragedy.

If we want to be around for a long time, yes, it does matter. And no, humanity is not likely to go extinct any time soon due to environmental degradation as you're implying.

Yes, the process of dying consists of suffering, and this is one reason we'd like to mitigate it as much as possible starting with aging, the biggest cause of death and suffering in the world.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 22 May 2014 - 08:07 PM.

I highly doubt that environmental problems will lead to nuclear annihilation in this century.

it is unlikely that humanity will be annihilated within this century by nuclear weapons.

There's no scientific consensus or plausible mechanism which suggests that environmental degradation is likely to annihilate humanity in this century.

 Please indicate where I said this century.

Edited by Soma, 25 May 2014 - 03:19 PM.

I highly doubt that environmental problems will lead to nuclear annihilation in this century.

it is unlikely that humanity will be annihilated within this century by nuclear weapons.

There's no scientific consensus or plausible mechanism which suggests that environmental degradation is likely to annihilate humanity in this century.

 Please indicate where I said this century.

This is the implied timeframe. You claimed that biological immortality won't be developed due to these sorts of problems in response to my claim that its development is not "as distant as it may seem." Put more explicitly: biological immortality is likely to be developed within this century.

 

Even if the development of biological immortality takes a little longer, assuming that it is unlikely to be developed due to environmental problems seems to be a bit of a stretch. If it takes several centuries, there might be a higher risk of a nuclear incident, but assuming that it will be large enough to cause a reduction in medical research that would render the biological immortality forever out of reach is a bit too speculative.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 25 May 2014 - 07:56 PM.

biological immortality is likely to be developed within this century.

Reasonable or even significant extension of life (barring extenuating circumstances, of course) maybe.

But actual immortality? Talk about a stretch. As you cited "scientific consensus", it is incumbent upon me to remind you that there is no scientific consensus on what the primary mechanism of aging even is or even if there is one primary mechanism at all.

In addition, it seems at this point that I must point out the obvious. Everything dies- cells, tissue, plants, animals, ecosystems, planets, stars, planetary systems, galaxies, and (according to most to some of the latest astrophysical theories) even universes. Even particles and subatomic particles are coming in and out of existence (birth and death) every instant. So, everything from the subatomic quark to the universe itself, has a "lifespan" and is subject to the death. Death is an clearly integral, and most would say and inexorable, process of existence.

True biological immortality would at the very least necessitate preserving a space in which to exist in, i.e., a place within the universe, as well as the universe itself, eternally. Thus, true biological immortality necessitates that not only the universe be "immortal", but that the conditions of the universe remain eternally constant. But the universe is likely going to continue to expand until it disintegrates, or will revert back into the "big crunch" of an infinitesimally small point.

So all that is left after the cinch of biological immortality is achieved (which is directly contrary to the laws governing within the universe and applying to the universe itself) is to somehow figure how to maintain a goldilocks universe (just right for biological life), as well as the universe itself...forever.

And I'm the one talking about a stretch?

This is nothing less than religion.


 

Edited by Soma, 25 May 2014 - 09:29 PM.

biological immortality is likely to be developed within this century.

Reasonable or even significant extension of life (barring extenuating circumstances, of course) maybe.

But actual immortality? Talk about a stretch. As you cited "scientific consensus", it is incumbent upon me to remind you that there is no scientific consensus on what the primary mechanism of aging even is or even if there is one primary mechanism at all.

Is it a stretch to claim that all of the diseases of aging will be eliminated or that they never will be? I'm claiming that the former is more likely. I've also pointed out that there are plausible mechanisms by which all of these diseases can be eliminated.

 

Remember, I urged you to cite "scientific consensus" or "plausible mechanism" for your apocalyptic claims.
 

In addition, it seems at this point that I must point out the obvious. Everything dies- cells, tissue, plants, animals, ecosystems, planets, stars, planetary systems, galaxies, and (according to most to some of the latest astrophysical theories) even universes. Even particles and subatomic particles are coming in and out of existence (birth and death) every instant. So, everything from the subatomic quark to the universe itself, has a "lifespan" and is subject to the death. Death is an clearly integral, and most would say and inexorable, process of existence.

True biological immortality would at the very least necessitate preserving a space in which to exist in, i.e., a place within the universe, as well as the universe itself, eternally. Thus, true biological immortality necessitates that not only the universe be "immortal", but that the conditions of the universe remain eternally constant. But the universe is likely going to continue to expand until it disintegrates, or will revert back into the "big crunch" of an infinitesimally small point.

So all that is left after the cinch of biological immortality is achieved (which is directly contrary to the laws governing within the universe and applying to the universe itself) is to somehow figure how to maintain a goldilocks universe (just right for biological life), as well as the universe itself...forever.

Biological immortality usually means not dying of aging, not being immune to death by buses or the heat death of the universe.

 

I agree that physical immortality is unlikely assuming that the current scientific consensus is correct. This consensus is actually on shaky ground since we don't even know what most of the universe is made of.

 

http://en.wikipedia....cal_immortality

Biological immortality is urgent and much needed now. Physical immortality can come later. How and whether that can truly be achieved is not the big issue right now. This universe may however have a great deal of time so really physical immortality in a practical sense may be possible. See (The Five Ages of the Universe):

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Universe

 

The book explores the future of the universe to 10 to the power of 100 and more years. That is rather a lot of time to figure something out or just to enjoy life. Then there is the possibility of running a simulated world which can be run faster than the world we live in. We can enter such a world and experience millions of years in the space f hours or days iin the real world. When the energy density in the universe is so low that processing in the virtual world  is much slower than the real world, we will still experience time at the same rate and carry on for much longer.

 

Right now howwever, I think we need to concentrate on tackling ageing and disease. I think both are achievable goals and I think the evidence suggests that our progress is accelerating fast enough that people alive today could benefit. A lot will depend on luck, if we happen across the right chemical/s or treatments, we could suddenly find ourselves living much longer. We only need to get to a point that lifespans are accelerating faster than we are ageing.

 

 

 

 

biological immortality is likely to be developed within this century.

Reasonable or even significant extension of life (barring extenuating circumstances, of course) maybe.

But actual immortality? Talk about a stretch. As you cited "scientific consensus", it is incumbent upon me to remind you that there is no scientific consensus on what the primary mechanism of aging even is or even if there is one primary mechanism at all.

Is it a stretch to claim that all of the diseases of aging will be eliminated or that they never will be? I'm claiming that the former is more likely. I've also pointed out that there are plausible mechanisms by which all of these diseases can be eliminated.

 

A better explanation is that once the initial SENS breakthroughs that allow for significant life extension are developed by repairing a certain amount of aging damage, SENS therapies that would repair the rest of the damage would be easier to develop, because they would just be improvements on the initial breakthroughs.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2267031/

This is so obvious im not even sure why it's a thread. 

 

Humans who are afraid of death try to avoid death, thus making them avoid death more than people who aren't afraid to die and don't try to avoid death.

 

Humans who live longer are more likely to pass on their genes.

 

I see a bunch of bs philosophy here, but a simple evolutionary explanation suffices. 

This is so obvious im not even sure why it's a thread. 
 
Humans who are afraid of death try to avoid death, thus making them avoid death more than people who aren't afraid to die and don't try to avoid death.
 
Humans who live longer are more likely to pass on their genes.
 
I see a bunch of bs philosophy here, but a simple evolutionary explanation suffices.

Rather read my explanations and a complete thread devoted to this, you're being too short and dismissive to prop your ego, no offence, its a crime Ive only too often committed.

Beings who are afraid of death starve or miss mating opportunities by avoidance if this trait is "evolved" too far so evolution does not make this trait universally preferable and in many species an increase in fearfulness would result in population decline and extinction.

Chances need to be taken for life to survive so avoidance as trait is a balance, not something that evolves all the way to immortality given enough time. Neurologically chances are taken when there is opportunity for gain in the face of fear. Ramping up fear causes missed opportunity for growth.

Another way to show this is: if you sum this entire forum membership up you'll probably get a larger than average number of personality disorders and quite a large number of paranoid individuals, some extremely paranoid that would never survive without the normal population creating a civilisation that has room and can support such fragile life.

Evolution does not make it clear at all in that sense but it does make it clear in a much more complicated way IMO involving physiology, neurology and psychology.

Even if you take yor life for suffering, living forever in suffering costs the effort, because of the perspective to stop your suffering.

 

If you live forever and if you forever are in a condition to work, then you will be able to solve all your problems and sufferings one day and will be able to end entirely, not to decrease your suffering. Everything can be made better after time. Credits are being payed off, wealth is being accumolated, progress in medicine is being developed, sicence and technology is making the life easier, love is being found. It is all a subject of time. If you have all the time in the world, you will have everything, that you need. Even if you feel pain for every move you make and you vomit more than you talk, and have a bad job, if you work and live forever you will one day make yourself painless and healthy. The only thing you should do is to wait some time for the medicine to find solution for your condition.

 

"I am and have always been more interested in health-span than life-span"

In brief, if you have a long enough life-span only as a life-span, after some waiting, you will have also the health-span, and you will have it forever.

 

"I am and have always been more interested in health-span than life-span"

 

That made me chuckle. Well the whole thread did but that in particular made my day.

I feel like it illustrates the New Age Deathceptance (like fatceptance but more final) movement in first world countries very well.

"I don't wanna suffer, dude, if I have to actually fight for my life or if living gets kinda annoying I rather just die in my sleep man. Pass the grass!"

Hahah, hippy logic.

 

As for the endless suffering... well I live in a borderline 3rd world country and I don't see it. Pretty much the only thing that has caused me suffering and stress is relatives, friends and acquaintances being ill or passing away. I'm not rich. I don't have an extremely good job. I'm not extremely beautiful or fit. And so on. I'm probably just better adjusted than you Soma, but I've been generally enjoying my life so far.

 

I'm not an immortalist per se, biological immortality is probably not attainable, that being said life extension even with our budding knowledge seems a possibility in our lifetimes especially for people in their twenties like me and if it's available and affordable I'll definitely make use of it. With the speed the technology is progressing I doubt we'll get more than 50ish extra healthy years of life anyway I don't see a logical reason why you would want to deny that to yourself, you'll still die afterwards - so you'll be dead and "happy" in the end either way.

Er... Bulgaria... It is a poor country, true, but 3rd world country... It is definately better then the 3rd world !!! No children dying from hunger, no ebola, no living in a jungle, who works is fine...

You'd be surprised of the actual state of third world countries.

The definition wasn't meant as an indicator of quality of life in the beginning but it got skewered because it used to fit. Nowadays not so much.

First world = western, Second world = commie, Third = the rest. That was the original definition.

 

Picture related - a third world country. Indonesia.

You know what else is a third world country? The United Arab Emirates. Yeah.

There's a lot of third world countries that can put us to shame as it comes to quality of life. Sure they're not as "balanced" in that but neither is most of eastern Europe including our country.

Even Africa isn't as bad as people like to think. It takes one photo from the 80s of a kid suffering from malaria and malnutrition though.

And sure there's "liberation" wars in Central Africa, but what they're "liberating" is not farms but diamond mines. Rather forced privatization if you ask me, heh heh. And then they sell the diamonds and other precious minerals to China. They're not exactly starving nowadays.

Which I guess could make me go on a tangent about the low possibility of worlds wars in the future and why I suspect they'll probably not happen. We're really not doing as badly as media likes to portray it.
 

 

Look at that suffering.

 

 

 

There is a simple equation. 

 

Progress(evolution) requires sacrifice. 

 

Sacrifice is embedded in evolutionary processes. 

 

Sibling competition. Intra group competition. Inter group competition. 

 

Progress is made by changing something and deeming it an improvement and this requires something else to be pointed at and deemed bad relative to the improvement. The improvement doesn't even have to be real, it rather requires the ones pointing at the "improvement" to have more power over the ones being pointed at and declared bad. A true improvement will produce more power so true evolution in terms of power/control does happen along the lines.

 

Old/bad is then destroyed, ignored, left out, forgotten, eliminated depending on what it is and what its upkeep requires. 

 

What must be understood is that the "new bad" is the "old good" and it is sacrificed.

 

This may be a person, a sibling, a group member, an institution, a way of life, a special knowledge. Things get extinct. Things get born. 

 

This is what evolution is. Listen to Pearl Jam - Do the evolution  Look at the video. 

 

The true philospohy running against it is Buddhism

Sure evolution requires sacrifice but the question you should be asking yourself is - does evolution require the sacrifice of natural selection if you're an intelligent life form?

Intelligence in my opinion is just an advanced tool of evolution, and it's definitely not an accident.

We and our science are more efficient at evolution than natural selection for one, we've bred invasive and incredibly stout life forms which have on many occasions displaced the natural fauna and flora.

Of course we're not perfect and we could destroy a biome or two but our speed makes us more preferable in the grander scheme because we're capable of repairing the damage much faster and we're also much faster at weeding out non beneficial traits from the genepool of many species. That's basically the "job" of apex predators (and predatory species in general), we're just more efficient than the typical specimen.

That made me chuckle. Well the whole thread did but that in particular made my day.

It means that I am more interested in a healthy life, even if short, rather than a long unhealthy one.

What is it about this that makes you chuckle?

I feel like it illustrates the New Age Deathceptance (like fatceptance but more final) movement in first world countries very well.

Wow, there is a new age deathceptance movement in first world countries?

Now, that got me chuckling.

No, this has nothing to do with new age philosophy. New agers, like all religionists, are enamored with the wish of living forever.

"I don't wanna suffer, dude, if I have to actually fight for my life or if living gets kinda annoying I rather just die in my sleep man. Pass the grass!"
Hahah, hippy logic.

A life of constant disabling illness is more than "kinda annoying".

I should just pull myself up by my bootstraps and "fight for my life"? Wow, what an idealist.

What would I be fighting for?

I'm probably just better adjusted than you Soma...

Yeah, that's probably it.
 

I don't see a logical reason why you would want to deny that to yourself...

Hippy logic, remember?

Pass the grass, dude!

A life of constant disabling illness is more than "kinda annoying".

 

If you're ill right now I'm sorry to hear that. Naturally people with good health would value their lives more than paraplegics for instance, that shouldn't be a big surprise.

If we're talking about a future illness you're concerned about or if you're equating old age to an illness on the other hand that's your own concerns and fears.

only 10% of the population worry about death

The vast majority of people worry about death. Those, who think, that they do not bother, understand the importance of their life while dying. There is a very small group of mentally ill people, who kill themselves.

i think no, only 10% worry chronicly; the more people approach death the more they live on the present, the better their mental health.

There is a difference between "to worry" and "to worry pathologically" and also is different from "to take the possible measures while you can and to the extend that you can". I admit, however, that the line to be crossed is tiny. Even though noone with a good mental health wants to die (fact well known in the psychiatry). Noone from the same also wants to get old. People simply understand all that when they get old and when they are close to the death from aging diseases. When they start to worry, however, is too late. It is arguably which is more healthy - a) to help the scientific progress with what you can, to try to be healthy and to live longer or b) not to worry, to waste your time, to be ill and to die earlier from aging. Scientific progress and prevention has to be made while you are young in order to have the capabilities to make it.

P.S.

 

I didn't see Soma and/or other people, who think simmilarly to comment my earlier post - post number #43 

 

 

No comments on my earlier post?

 

Does my argument, that if you live forever you will be able to have everything that you want and you can't have in one life time?

 

Did I win the conversation?

 

Did I made an unbeatable argument of why to live forever?

 

Wooohoooooo !!!!

      

 

Lets leave the topic about why, lets thnk some time about how we all will live forever

b-b-b-b-but i want nothing

No comments on my earlier post?
 
Does my argument, that if you live forever you will be able to have everything that you want and you can't have in one life time?

But there are others that will want the same things. Scarcity is not eliminated by immortality. It is in fact worsened.

I don't think, that this will be a problem. Material goods are accomulating with the time. Take for example the houses. Lets suggest that a building company will build 1 house for an year. For 30 years it will buid 30 houses. This means that 30 people, who want a house, will have it in 30 years. The houses, that all the companies and people build stay for a long time and are becomming more and more. Plus what the others want will have its limits. You for example will buy one house, then after some time another, third perhaps and... at the end you alone will stop buying, because you do not need any more,moreover you do not have what to do with them and you are going to pay the government taxes for them. You can not live in 3 places all at once. All the goods are accomulating with the time andthe life is becomming better and better with the time no matter if you want it or not. While thare are people, who work, the goods will come in the market periodically.

I don't think, that this will be a problem. Material goods are accomulating with the time. Take for example the houses. Lets suggest that a building company will build 1 house for an year. For 30 years it will buid 30 houses. This means that 30 people, who want a house, will have it in 30 years. The houses, that all the companies and people build stay for a long time and are becomming more and more. Plus what the others want will have its limits. You for example will buy one house, then after some time another, third perhaps and... at the end you alone will stop buying, because you do not need any more,moreover you do not have what to do with them and you are going to pay the government taxes for them. You can not live in 3 places all at once. All the goods are accomulating with the time andthe life is becomming better and better with the time no matter if you want it or not. While thare are people, who work, the goods will come in the market periodically.

 

I hope, for the sake of your own intelligence, that your just trolling, Unless the social issues are solved it wlll continue the way its been - 1 person may have 3000 house, and 3000 people will have no houses.  Since when has any huan said"I have enough. I'll never purchase another product."  Goods  will come into the market and guys at the top will still keep all the profits. Unless private ownership of products is abolished(something I hope never comes about) this is the way it will be for a considerable length of time.

 

Once you are healthy and have enough food, clothes and shelter i.e basic needs are met, then an increase in money does not really correlate in an increase in happiness.  An ad may come on tv and you may believe that you"need" this new trimmer that will may you look like Brad Pitt, you use it once and chuck it into the drawer. The problem with the OP is his basic needs have not been met. In future society hopefully when everyone is more conscious people like him will be given more attention, but it remains some while away. Society is a reflection of human nature, we change human nature and we change society.  

 

Everything is built on the backs of the guys below. What we in the first world don't fully realise is that without the expolitation of the third world all this wouldn't exist. Its so easy to sit back and say how well we're doing and how great life is when we are so privileged, starting off so many rungs above everyone else in the global ladder. This is a realistic view of life not a pessimestic one, positive thinkers hate dealing with this reality and subconsciously choose not to, as it is detrimental to their well-being.

 

Simple adding time is no argument, people will continue spiralling in a downward cycle if that's where their current momentum is aimed. Change requires willpower and action and its a tough and ardous process.