Alcohol.

Lots and lots of people lean heavily on it and think that alcohol is the spice of their life. When, it contributes to so many problems than it’s so-called benefits. We tried, in America anyways, to outright ban alcohol. Problem was that the person who wanted it banned, was too extremist.

Like he didn’t think it all through and think just going for the jugular of the problem is what will work. When, it didn’t and just made people work around it until eventually the ban was dismantled.

So, since then, we’ve been putting up with drunk drivers, drunk disputes, drunk abusers and other issues. I still wish we could just slam our hands down at the desk and demand we sit to discuss in how to properly deal with this issue than people proclaiming that it’s not a problem.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    The idea that people in charge should be better, so their actions can’t be questioned; rather than that they should be better, so their actions should be scrutinized. It’s so backwards and it enables nearly all of the worst abuses of power. It might be harder to fix people being attracted to power or being straight up malicious, but if we could solve the authority problem, then those would have a safeguard in a lot of scenarios. It’s so close to being solvable, too; people grow up experiencing misuses of authority that hurt them, they should understand the problem. But somehow it still seems so prevalent, that authority is treated as being above questioning or consequences. I hate it. But it is possible to change.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    In the US and Canada?

    Car dependency / Car centrism.

    Sure, we have a few large cities with non roadway mass transit.

    But uh, in general, we’ve got terminal car brain, and I do not see this fundamentally changing.

    The vast majority of places will continue being designed around cars instead of people.

    Cars and fuel costs will keep going up, less and less people will have them, and (again excepting a few extremely dense and expensive cities) we will just go to mass private car rentals/shares instead of actual mass transit or meaningfully redesigning cities.

    Sidewalks? Bike lanes? Go fuck yourself, you don’t matter if you don’t own a car, wait an hour for a bus (if one exists), get an uber, have a friend with a car.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Are there EV longhaul trucks that are at cost and performance parity with ICE longhaul trucks on the horizon?

          I don’t think so.

          That means that logistics costs for basically everything gets significantly more expensive when ICE fuel costs go up.

          We could lessen this problem by building out more freight rail capacity, and a whole lot more minor rail lines so that trucks don’t routinely drive halfway across the continent and are used less often…

          …but we are not.

          So, that means that when gas/diesel prices go up, everything gets more expensive… including ICE and EV personal vehicles.

          Currently, generally, EVs (and Hybrids) are already 20% to 30% more expensive than their ICE counterparts, even after subsidies/rebates, and are only less expensive than the ICE counterpart in a long run of 10+ years due to lower ongoing fuel costs…

          But if gas/diesel prices significantly rise and never go back down…

          All vehicles become more expensive.

          If ICE vehicle ongoing fuel costs are now so high that an average person can’t afford them…

          The only other choice is EVs … but those now have a stupendous sticker price.

          So you end up with even less people being able to afford any vehicle whatsoever, but a society that is physically designed to… require one.

          So then you end up with a society of an upper class of EV owners, and everyone else who used to be able to afford a midrange ICE car now having to use ICE/EV motorcycles or EBikes… for daily commutes, in all weather.

          No more AC or Heating for your completely environmentally exposed 30 minute to 2hr commute to work through a heatwave or heavy snow or rain.

          They’d have to rent an EV vehicle to do 2 weeks worth of grocery shopping or move any kind of substantial cargo like a bed, or move more than 2 people a considerable distance, start arranging ride shares to and from work in some kind of comfort.

          Oh, and a ton of Americans are functionally too obese/unhealthy/injured to be able to actually use a motorcycle or EBike. So just count them out of the workforce if they can’t find ride shares I guess.

        • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 hours ago

          As they do, they’re quickly turning into indicators of privilege. If/when the petro dollar crashes I totally don’t expect billy bob that drives his eight cylinder diesel to hold any resentment towards EV drivers when he’s stuck paying for something that he can’t afford gas for. But hey what do I know I prefer old school bicycles.

        • Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          If I had more time under my belt I’d probably buy one. The 100k+ pricetag is just too much right now

  • ex_06@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “Random” events of “evil”. Basically I think we’ll never reach something like 0 murders, 0 rapes, 0 stealing for little greed and so on. Or even 0 addiction (edit: i’m not including addiction to the previous list of crimes, i wanted to add it as another class of issues for we will never reach a true 0)

    We are very very far from the ideal situation tho, there is a looot of margin of improvement

    Like your alcohol thing in the post: ban only makes it worse and still now you (as US, not you OP) have a very weird relationship with alcohol with the thing that minors cannot touch it and people have to drink from a paper bag lol. Let’s say that you are not really trying hard to improve the situation. We’ll never reach 0 alcoholists but society is not in a good shape and alcohol is cheap so ye

  • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t think we will ever have a society that is truly saved from class warfare. I think that the upper classes will always exist in some form and they will always oppress the vast majority of the population, with varying degrees of brutality. I also think this is the most important issue in our society and must be dealt with. It’s depressing.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      In Marx’s own idea the point were class warfare is no more is when our civilization can satisfy any needs of anyone.

      It would be the ultimate goal of communism, perfect equity through infinite automation of all resources.

      Then they would only be art, philosophy, science and social activities.

      Except, as long as there’s limited resources, fighting for it is our nature. To the point of having to much if may be.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Considering how little we actually know, how much we are still figuring out today, how wrong we once were, and most definitely still are on many things, about said nature, the naturalistic argument is IMHO rather weak. The argument silently assumes too many things, at least with our current knowledge - that human beings do actually have an inherent nature, that said nature is uniform enough across the whole species to make that generalization, that said nature is inevitable and can’t be evolved past or rationalized against, that it always was the case and will always be, etc.

        • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Definitely true.

          I think the hypothesis of a nature both in human actions and society as a whole does have enough merits to be a good starting point.

          Were I think there is a lot of unpredictability is on conditions of living and technologies.

          Technologies especially, evolve so much quicker than society or human nature.

          I would say recently our technologies twisted some of our own nature. For instance how we reproduce in such a controlled way.

          Not only this but we do now more than ever things not because of our nature. And it’s also been put into very unique situations.

          A great example is social media (including Lemmy itself). We have access to communication so far from us it created very unique communities.

          • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            It definitely is a big part of our nature as social creatures.

            Although we can cooperate with our group and fight against another, hence the consistent wars throughout history.

            I think human nature isn’t one sided.

            But you’re right in that cooperation is the most effective (and desirable) way of survival.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          If humans have a nature, then humans will always have that nature by definition. “We” might get beyond that nature, but it won’t be “us” after that. It will be our descendants.

          And not like “sons and daughters” but rather “our evolutionary descendants”.

          As for humanity, we exist in a particular set of inescapable challenges, which define what it is to be human.

    • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Similar to this, I’ve got a real beef with our unresolved insecuritues we have as a people (in principle. Obviously in practise this is hard).

      I feel like the insecurities that essentially, drive us, are really holding us back from meaningful progress on our legitimately hard problems with climate, energy/food distribution, etc…

      We’re still drawn into BS distractions and opposing teams and whatnot like a bunch of monkeys with sticks (which is apt, to be fair)

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Getting consent to creating a life from a unborn child. Every human being was raped into existence by their parents.

    Rent is due in 7 days.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t know if that’s a problem with society so much as it is a problem with reality.

      …or a problem with time and sequences of events.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Everyone has the option to stop their lifes if wish be.

      Most don’t not just from some technicalities but because parents or otherwise we have a biological urge to consent to being alive and make live being.

      The consent is from our nature and only extreme circumstances makes it otherwise.

      • als@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not true, police come and lock you up if they catch you trying to stop being alive

        • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          What do you mean the police?

          Isn’t the hospital and medics the one who cares for suicidal people?

          Putting them in jail if that’s what you mean is pretty barbaric.

          Again though the police can’t detain you indefinitely. What stop people from doing it is being cared for the reason they wanted to in the first place.

          • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Isn’t the hospital and medics the one who cares for suicidal people?

            not in America, where hospitals aren’t free and a call to the suicide hotline will have the cops going to your house

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Everyone has the option to stop their lifes if wish be.

        I don’t know if that’s true. I shot myself in the head once and just woke up like nothing had happened. I suspect life might not be as fragile as it appears from the outside.

        • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          It is surprising how resilient we are. Getting shot in the head is an example, we often underestimate the chance of survival.

          Unfortunately it doesn’t prevent all suicide.

  • EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s no problem in society that can’t be fixed. But the problem is there’s too much conclusion without proper understanding

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    22 hours ago

    It’s described in the bible: man’s need to work.

    “Work” meaning “Do things you don’t feel like doing, because they need to be done”.

    Our emotional configuration evolved in an environment that is gone. In that environment, what one feels like doing, and what one needs to do, are the same. That’s why that motivational configuration evolved: it optimized our survival and reproduction in that environment.

    But our civilization has wrapped us in a new environment, that has different cause and effect relationships than our EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness).

    This means it will always be necessary to do things we don’t feel like doing, or to suffer the consequences.

    Generally speaking, this is the problem of “work”. The bible refers to this as a sort of eternal curse humanity must suffer as a result of being expelled from Eden, which itself resulted from our eating of the tree of knowledge.

    When we parted from our basic animal ways, we took on this curse of having to force ourselves. It’s what Marx refers to as the “alienation of labor”.

    And as society progresses, it’s only going to get worse.

    For example right now, one must shower and dress and go out in the cold to go to a job in order to get money to survive.

    That’s pretty far from “eat whatever fruit looks pretty”. But it’s also not as bad as it’s going to be.

    Our brains are capable of finding some meaning in that daily work struggle.

    Soon we will have more automation and some kind of UBI. It will be an option to not work.

    And in some ways that will be better. Just like working at Amazon moving boxes is safer and more predictable than living in the wild, having UBI will be safer and more predictable than working at Amazon.

    But also, just like that dangerous jungle existence creates an inherent meaning in the survival, feels rich and alive, and how that effect is diminished when working a job surrounded by civilization, in that same way having basic income is going to give us even less inherent meaning to our days.

    We’ll have more options, and as a result we’ll have more existential anxiety. There will be more freedom, less of a default path for the day, and this will make us feel even more alienated.

    This is a problem that will always exist in our society: the less danger and difficulty our external environment provides us, the more difficult it will be to get ourselves moving. The more susceptible we will be to depression and anxiety.

    This is why people fantasize about a zombie apocalypse. Yes it’s horrible. Yes it’s full of terror. But it more closely resembles the environment of natural hostility we evolved in, so it’s easy to know what to do. Gather supplies, secure your shelter, kill zombies. It’s simple and straightforward, and so it would feel very alive. Depression disappears when one is running for their life. Anxiety is eliminated by fear. Confusion is eliminated by hunger.

    We may get “lucky” and see civilization collapse. Or there may be a war into which we are all drawn as front line fighters. We may have an alien invasion.

    But then we’re just back to the other kind of suffering. The kind we emerged from to find this world.

    These two types of fuckedness complement one another, and we’ll always have some nonzero combination of the two.

    • locuester@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Thanks for this. Was very thought provoking. It goes along with something my generation teases about with growing up in the 80’s. It was an entertaining and dangerous world and we didn’t have time for all this anxiety depression stuff. Haha

  • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    18 hours ago

    alcohol is especially hard to ban because it’s just sugar and yeast, and you can even use natural yeast if it gets banned, and you can use fruit if sugar gets banned. While with drugs some tyrannical empire might be able to ban every single lab-related equipment and chemical (and even then, you would be surprised what people can make by themselves without anything else other then natural resources, I mean that’s how we got here as a species), alcohol is such a simple recipe that it’s just plain impossible to regulate effectively, and the current way of having it cheap enough that people don’t brew their own but expensive enough that the 99% of the population doesn’t turn into alcoholics is good enough

  • SleepyBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    I understand the point in OPs post, but I disagree with it based upon evidence we have available to us. I think first and foremost it is important to mention (I dont have the studies linked but it shouldnt be hard to find) that teenage drug use overall is trending downward, with that including underage alcohol use/abuse. If younger generations use it less, the problems caused by alcoholism will be less prevalent as time goes on. Secondly, weve been putting up with drunk drivers for a while but (as our younger generations have been told for about 20 years now) the consequences for drunk or impaired operation of a motor vehicle have become more and more severe. I do believe alcoholism is something that can and will be phased out given enough time. The only thing that is still a mystery is what vice is going to replace it, and whether it is going to be better or worse.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah education and prevention were always the best measure against addictions. But when it’s something deeply ingrained in society it takes time to move on. I like to think society is it’s own living thing, evolving much slower.

  • iii@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Alcohol abuse is a symptom of trauma. Trauma begets trauma. That’s the thing never solved. Take away alcohol, it’ll find another avenue.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not to mention it occurs naturally in rotting fruit. It would be like attempting to ban photosynthesis.

      Are we gonna outlaw yeast, too?

      • iii@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        During prohibition in the US, there was inoculated fruit juice being sold with the warning like: “do not leave unattended for 2 weeks at room temperature, as it may ferment”.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          And those are even harder to make consumable than fruit literally fermenting on a tree, or yeast getting into some sugary drink.

          So unless we’re gonna get rid of leavened bread and cut down every Marula tree we’re not getting rid of alcohol.

          • J4g2F@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Mushrooms just grow here in the grasslands. Only problem is harvesting season is mostly in the autumn. So you need te dry them.

            But (magic) mushrooms growing in the wild are pretty common in north-west Europe. ( The species is found in a lot of places psilocybe semilanceata ) of course there are many more and you don’t even have to wait to get fermented.

            Still even I can just pick them they are still not allowed here (in the Netherlands)

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Believe me someone will try.

        Eventually biology itself will be banned because of how un-controllable it is. All that will be allowed will be silicon components manufactured by a central authority or assembled under centrally-approved code.

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s an interesting article. I appreciate that they mention that the studies may be flawed because they attained wildly different data, probably due to methodology. They also mention that people with personality disorders are often not caught by these surveys.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Did you not read it? Personality disorders ARE caught by the studies. The article references a 2020 study by Elizabeth A. Evans et al., which explicitly examined the prevalence of personality disorders among people with opioid use disorder. It states, “55.1 percent of women and 57.0 percent of men with opioid use disorder were found to have a personality disorder, such as borderline, antisocial, etc." Also, the article mentions findings from 16 studies on antisocial personality disorder among people with alcohol use disorder (AUD). Seven studies explored borderline personality disorder in AUD populations, with prevalence estimates ranging from 6–66 percent and a median of 21 percent. These wide-ranging results reflect the inclusion of personality disorders in the research.

          I’m certain you misspoke?

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The first half of the article focuses on the biggest study, the NSDUH

            SAMHSA’s annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). NSDUH does not measure different mental health conditions individually, and probably fails to catch personality disorders.

            That’s where I saw the information.

            • stinky@redlemmy.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              23 hours ago

              That’s one survey, you said “these surveys” (plural) which is why I was confused.

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I’m not OP, but I am a former alcoholic, and the son of a woman who drank herself to death.

            In many cases we have severe untreated mental illness, often inherited and/or from childhood trauma. We are generally suicidal. Getting black out drunk (chasing oblivion) is better than living with your thoughts and emotions.

            Anecdotally, I’d like to add that most of the many alcoholics I’ve known have very strong empathy and emotional intelligence. The sad state of the world certainly contributes to some people’s alcoholism. I know it did with mine.

            For many reasons, alcoholics choose to kill themselves slowly with alcohol rather than a faster way that could cause even more grief and pain to the people around them.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I believe that has been your personal experience, but that’s not the case for everyone. Addiction isn’t rational, and alcoholism wears a lot of costumes.