3 Answers

  1. It seems doubtful to me that there are false values, and, therefore, some “correct”, “true”ones.

    And then someone who is right and smart should know which values are right and which are wrong, sort them, and Teach us.

    I still don't know any false values. Need for fame? In pleasure? Separately? As an accessory? In power? In peace? – we have many needs/values, they are all quite real.�

    Yes, each of us has a certain set of values for some period of his life comes to the fore. And then another. But for others, it's different.

  2. Not so much values as false attitudes to life that the ruling minority imposes on the majority in order to make it easier to manage and manipulate them…

    There is a lot of this – starting from the artificial agenda discussed in the media and ending with the sayings “if you are so smart – show your wallet” :-))))

    The main point is to force you to live as others want, in pursuit of their imaginary values and strange goals, to wean you to think, to teach you to take your “thoughts” from TV, to inspire “ideas about beauty”: for the sake of everyday comfort, you can endure any mental discomfort (although everything is exactly the opposite).

    Technology already allows you to automate almost all production and services, giving people the opportunity to do what they love and not think about money, BUT the elite is not so interested in how they will solve various problems of their often unhealthy psyche :-)))) without lackeys and other servants? Who will confirm their “coolness and significance” if the “kings” lose their retinue???

    It is unlikely that our “civilization” can be considered healthy – everything is managed not so much by competent people as by active and aggressive ones :-))))

    Put this type of person at the piano or at the helm of an airplane – he will play and steer : -))))) And the political elite that decides the fate of the world consists of such people almost everywhere.

  3. It turned out to be a whole treatise)

    1) The interests of one person are more important than the interests of the majority. Under this is summed up a beautiful utopia that if everyone is happy and provides for their own life, then it will be good for everyone. Imagine a village cut off from civilization (somewhere in the north). And then the famine begins, but one resident has a large supply of food. What should he do? For me, it is quite obvious that to divide the reserves equally among all. Such a scheme, by the way, is also biologically expedient: one person will not survive without a pack, so it is more reasonable to save the pack at the cost of his own life than to destroy the pack and survive himself (the genotype is almost the same for everyone and his genes are already partially present in the genotype of the pack). Moreover, if in such conditions a person raises the price tenfold and engages in trade, they will be hung on the lantern by their own people. Fortunately, society is still able to control its members at this point. An example is the institution of a case against a friend who raised the price of HIV drugs in the United States enormously. If they found out the tax evasion – there would have been a person, but there would have been an article. And in this case, it is correct. 100 years ago, the case would have been decided by a Lynch court;

    2) The price of human life in the modern European world is probably too high. The logic is clear, we have been building our civilization for a long time, dying, starving, using child labor, and now it's time to just live. But the European civilization is about one billion people, who are becoming less and less every decade – no one wants to give birth. And there are another 6 billion people living around us. None of them refused to fight, and most of the population lives in poverty and hunger. And in 80 years, there will already be about 10 billion of these guys around us, and again only 1 of us. And we are no longer able to solve the problem with ISIS through the good old war. Valuing the lives of soldiers is a good thing, but when it does not allow you to fight, in general, even though there are terrorist attacks … this is probably a wrong position.

    3) No one is interested in solving global universal problems. We can't even raise the birth rate. The population of the indigenous peoples of our civilization is declining against the background of the rapid growth of the same Africa (in 80 years there will already be 5 billion people). Europe now does not know what to do with migrants. And imagine what will happen if 1-2 billion migrants arrive abruptly and on a one-time basis (for example, a big war will start there in 100 years). And a couple of billions will join ISIS. What is the perspective? They will bury Europe (including Russia). And sooner or later, the same thing will happen to America and Australia. If not in 100 years, then in 200 / 300 years. Africa does not seem to be going to reduce its growth rate. What do we do with all this? To begin with, obviously, everyone should get together and start having children. 5 children in a family is not an exorbitant number, given that we are talking about the richest part of the world. But no one cares, no one wants to waste their life on children. This is the heat of idiocy: you give people numbers that show they're dying out and they don't care. They ask you to leave them alone and let them enjoy their lives. But only raising the standard of living in Africa and building full-fledged states with full-fledged cities there is the only humane way to reduce population growth and reduce migration. Europe needs to go back to Africa and fix their lives there, so they don't ruin it here. Today, of course, no one is capable of this either.

    4) The theory of small affairs and ridiculing heroism. Heroism, it would seem, should normally be the basis for education. But modern society prefers to ridicule heroism. Not the heroes themselves, they are, so far, well done. And the very phenomenon of heroism. A vivid example is the discussion in the Rain on the topic of whether it was worth surrendering Leningrad to the Nazis (with which the presenters were unanimous – of course it was worth it). As if it wasn't about the Nazis, but about a humanitarian mission. These guys were not confused by the fact that many of the blockade runners were still alive. And instead of admiring their resilience, the modern intelligentsia has the audacity to tell them this: they say, of course, you are good fellows and all that, but that you were so ostentatious – for the sake of appearance, you would have held on for a couple of months and handed over the city. This is some kind of fairy-tale world of moral freaks. Yes, even if the Nazis would have promised them each a Mercedes – in a normal society, it is customary to hold on to the last.

    5) Loss of identity. We don't know the names of the scientists, and no one will remember why the Nobel Prizes were awarded last year. At the same time, for every specialty in the world, several thousand articles can easily be published per day. Science is popular, but what kind of science? Mostly, people are interested in watching short lectures by popularizers of science, mainly on astrophysics. This is significant, and a branch of science is chosen in which it is simply impossible to prove or disprove something experimentally. How many theories are built around black holes. It's just a point in space with the strongest gravity, or it's the entrance to a parallel universe, or we live in a black hole, I heard a friend who gave a whole classification of black holes as portals: they can be white, black and some other things. Who, in general, invented all this nonsense? What are all these theories based on? Popularizers of science prefer to keep silent about this. But, after all, real science is almost not developing. We sequenced the human genome, learned how to clone animals, and it didn't help us much. We develop in small ways. There is nothing comparable in significance to getting insulin or getting antibiotics. We were promised to create a technology for growing organs from stem cells. All we have so far is a classification of stem cells. That is, a lot of new names were invented and that's all. I wonder if a team of scientists will come to the conclusion that it is impossible to clone an organ – will they have the nerve to tell us about it, or will they prefer to continue to draw money by creating infinitely complex classifications. The fact that there are no strong personalities in politics was not mentioned, in my opinion, only by a lazy person. There are no personalities anywhere.

    6) Money is a way to solve any problem. This is partly an illusion. The introduction in the USSR of a 25% premium for harmfulness in psychiatry did not exactly improve the situation. On the contrary, before that, doctors came to psychiatry who consciously chose a specialty, loved it. This work is not the most pleasant in medicine. The appearance of the surcharge led to the fact that undecided students are med. Universities chose psychiatry. On average, the quality of specialists has worsened. Some of these guys took part in the same punitive psychiatry. At the same time, there were doctors in the USSR who deliberately did not diagnose sluggish schizophrenia (this was not a protest, they just adhered to the theoretical views of their school).

    7) Lack of respect for simple hard work. During the gold rush, a strong and determined man could take a chance and go to work. He had a chance to get rich with the usual heavy (often dangerous) simple work. This is not currently possible. And soon taxis will learn to drive without drivers and men will lose another opportunity to earn their own physical labor.

    8) Lack of respect for their work and business. On this site, you can often find the question: how to start your own business or what you need to know to do business. I generally get the impression that I don't understand something. Business-means “business”. And in the days of my youth, usually a clarification was added to the word business (business), which, in fact, indicated what kind of business this person was engaged in. To say I'm in business is like saying I work at work. This indicates the predominance of grooming psychology. People are not going to become professionals, they expect to be the first to come up with some nonsense and make money on it. Such people, for example, stylize a cafe as a Soviet dining room in the hope that the suckers will bring them their money for the opportunity to take a few selfies. They don't try to cook better than others or make the most affordable cafe in their class. The social utility of such projects is zero, it is an attempt to parasitize on human weaknesses. Business should be handled by professionals in their field. If a person wants to open a furniture factory, then he needs to get a suitable education, then work in a furniture factory, after that, it would be nice to go abroad and get a job in a furniture factory there. And then, after studying the case, you can already create your own business. And so it should be in everything. If businessmen in our country simply loved their business – they would not abandon seed breeding, they would themselves delve into modern animal husbandry techniques, grow fish from their own fry, and make wine from their own grapes. They would be very interested in it. Instead, there are money bags that are only interested in profit. We have a huge country for agriculture, and we buy seeds abroad. It may be cheaper, but it's even worse than oil addiction. It turns out that we just rent out soybean land to foreigners and grow products for them from their own seeds.

    9) Sectarian thinking. The sectarian logic is as follows: the truth is one and it is available to me, those who think differently are idiots (liberals or quilted jackets), or they have sold out (to the Kremlin or the State Department), or this is all, in general, a conspiracy theory. No one wants to independently assess the reality, everyone repeats after their sect. People become banal and predictable. When a liberal wants to say that there is no development, he will always start like this:”The authorities have done nothing in the last 16 years.” You might think that before that, the gardens of paradise were blooming and the people were drowning in excess for all 10 years, until Putin came. Although, since 1991, there has been a continuous economic decline. This applies, in general, to everyone. I cite liberals as an example only because I know them better. This approach creates disrespect for the interlocutor and the inability to fully communicate.

Leave a Reply