The Sane Society

[Nearly Sane]

No, not my fan club, though I miss the days I had one, but Erich Fromm's book



https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/03/23/the-sane-society-erich-fromm/

[Udayana]

Quite interesting, but seems like another unachievable daydream - not self-critical and seems not to ask/understand why we have taken the path that we are on.

[Nearly Sane]

What sort of 'self criticism' would you want it to make? As for, how we got here, I think a small charity trying to real with that would be being utopian.

[Udayana]

Taking another look, it doesn't really make points of it's own and just points to various pieces without critical analysis.

My thoughts are that, if we were able to have a "sane society" we would have achieved it by now. The fact of the matter is that life goes on and it is human nature that deals with it as flashes past. It is not possible to work everything out and then implement some perfect system.

We would all be extinct by the time a "sane" constitution had been established. Maybe after a few wars we would have something workable day to day - as has already been done a number of times.   

Engineering and technology are not going to stand still and wait for all the ins and outs, pros and cons, to be worked out. Science is always provisional, and results will be used by anyone who finds they seem to work for their purposes.

Incremental improvements are possible but usually involve a great deal of tedious work that is often out date by the time it is implemented. Mostly this involves being able to discuss stuff, in detail, openly, without acrimony, lobbying and escalation of existing disagreements - something people  seem unwilling to bother with.

I'd say, forget sane society, just seek out what you need for your own sanity.

[Nearly Sane]

Taking another look, it doesn't really make points of it's own and just points to various pieces without critical analysis.

My thoughts are that, if we were able to have a "sane society" we would have achieved it by now. The fact of the matter is that life goes on and it is human nature that deals with it as flashes past. It is not possible to work everything out and then implement some perfect system.

We would all be extinct by the time a "sane" constitution had been established. Maybe after a few wars we would have something workable day to day - as has already been done a number of times.   

Engineering and technology are not going to stand still and wait for all the ins and outs, pros and cons, to be worked out. Science is always provisional, and results will be used by anyone who finds they seem to work for their purposes.

Incremental improvements are possible but usually involve a great deal of tedious work that is often out date by the time it is implemented. Mostly this involves being able to discuss stuff, in detail, openly, without acrimony, lobbying and escalation of existing disagreements - something people  seem unwilling to bother with.

I'd say, forget sane society, just seek out what you need for your own sanity.

Sorry that seems to justify accepting anti vaxxers. Who cares if babies die in pain because of things that are wrong that you can argue rationally are wrong. Their sanity, and dearh in pain are not important.

Now, I may well be reading you wrong but happy to listen to what you think? In what way it different from above?

[Udayana]

Not sure why anti-vaxxers are particularly relevant here, but we can take the as an example.

Of-course the case for vaccines, against the the amti-vaxxers, must be put as well as possible based on sound evidence and science. Policies and actions need to be based on this evidence and science.

However, there will always remain some that, irrationally, refuse to accept vaccination and actively work to undermine vaccination programs, or even to profit through opposition.

How does the sane society deal with them other than by explaining why they are right and the anti-vaxxers wrong?