Let me start by boiling this idea down to a couple of phrases that I've heard online. The first is one you've probably seen around here a few times; the idea of "Enshitification"- which i think basically boils down to "paying more and getting less". I know there's a better definition of it out there, but this is what it means to me: because of inflation and greed in general, things that used to be free or low-cost are not only becoming pricey, but their quality is degrading too.

Which brings me to the next point: between subscription services that basically say "you don't actually own this; you're just renting it", and otherwise being unable to afford things, in... other places... online, some were saying "Oh, at this rate, the new slogan will be 'You'll own nothing and be happy about it!'"

Also, I'd better bring in some context for the next part: I was able to leave the US, and am currently living in Asia. Which means I'm coming into more contact with various East Asian philosophies. And as I examine these philosophies, I have to ask "Is owning less ACTUALLY a bad idea?"

Now, I realize that in many ways this turns into an Eastern vs. Western philosophy argument. For starters, the idea of "individualism" and "you have your own stuff" is very central to Western ideology in the first place- to brush on a tangent with political ideology, I think part of the reason why words like "Communism" and "socialism" cause such a freak-out is because they bring up this idea of "Wait, I have to SHARE something? No, it's MINE!" (plus the extreme example of sharing toothbrushes is always used, and I think everyone can admit that's just gross and disgusting... but I digress). In fact, some of you may remember the phenomenon that came out several years ago with Marie Kondo and minimalism- an idea that in her home country of Japan is very commonplace, but in other places like the US was a totally foreign concept. I expect some very major geographical differences also played a part in why this mindset was received very differently in the two countries. To be more specific: Japan is a small island country (especially when compared to the US), so the Japanese have to be VERY mindful of space; whereas America has TONS of space, so people keep buying crap to fill said space.

Anyways, this brings me to my next point: there was a survey done within the last year or so about what places were the happiest. I don't remember exactly which country ranked the highest, but I do remember it was a Scandinavian country. But more to the point, the reason why they were so happy basically boiled down to "We don't have a ton of stuff, but we're very happy with what we DO have." When I read that, my immediate reaction was "Well, no wonder places like the US are miserable- we're always being pushed to Buy More Crap, with a good dose of FOMO mixed in."

Now, let me fully confess something: even though I'm talking about maybe having too many material possessions is what makes us miserable... well, some of my biggest hobbies involve collecting things. For the one most relatable to Tildes, I have TONS of videos games for a variety of systems that are on my "I'm EVENTUALLY going to play and beat that game". Other hobbies of mine involve new things being available to buy, with many people saying "This is a MUST-HAVE!". The good news is that at least recently, I'm not buying some much of this kind of item.

So... all this idea to say that people are becoming more miserable and depressed. There's no doubt a variety of factors are involved, but it seems to me that if we bought less crap, some things would start changing (and a few things possibly breaking), and maybe we'd be a bit happier. Of course, this completely goes against the Consumerism idea that is heavily pushed in America, but maybe that's a GOOD thing.

There used to be a time some decades ago when media was often touted as a separate pillar of democracy, as in it was supposed to keep checks on the govt of the day. Mass Journalism was a professional branch of study or course in universities (probably still is?) and it used to be highly principled. In fact, being principled was often thought of as a quality of journalism more than anything else!

But in today's world, I see that changing a lot. Most media houses across the world are state controlled media, you can see it from the kind of stories they come up with, etc. More than that, media has directly become a function of electoral politics, you'll hardly find any content which relates to society or the ordinary working class human, as separate from electoral politics.

You'll hardly find any media house vehemently or openly criticizing its own country's govt (though funnily, each will be criticizing other countries' govts and/or based on ideology!). Even when the criticism is there, it's in a very controlled and nuanced form. It's not so difficult to make 2+2 equals 4 here?

This didn't used to happen in earlier decades. When I grew up watching Doordarshan TV, there was hardly any news at all in India - except for that one 9:00 PM news show which came once every day, that was in fact a quiet and peaceful world to live in! This constant bombardment of political news has become a problem. I think, we need news which is people centric and talks about the issues of working class citizens. Do you think such a kind of media will ever evolve?

Disclaimer: This post is written in the context of India but also relevant globally today in many other countries.

Millennials who lived in India in the 90s era will recall that growing population used to be a serious problem back then, in fact to such an extent that they used to highlight the number of kids born every second and displayed a population timer every morning.

Now, don't you feel it's strange that at 90 crore it was such a serious problem but at 140 crore, it's not even discussed today? Each time this topic comes up, it's cleverly deflected by holding some minority responsible for it. But there is a need for a serious debate for this today and to understand the consequences of a society with over burdened population.

Any serious economist or socio-religious scholar will tell you that growing population is the root of all problems in society, be it illiteracy, crime, corruption, nepotism, religious extremism, etc., these are all resource allocation problems if you think about it. Too many mouths to feed will eventually make people prioritize at all roles and positions and many of those will be left out, this will eventually result in increased polarization between the "haves" and "have nots" in society - which is pretty much a recipe for disaster in longer term.

However, the above situation is a fertile ground for the political class (rich politicians, industrialists, motivated journalists, etc.) as both dumb vote banks and cheap labor is supplied plentifully with a growing working class. This is the reason you'll never see this topic discussed in popular narrative or on any TV channel. They want us to live compressed lives in small ghettos, that's the environment that creates cynical people filled with ignorance who can then be easily prodded towards a certain agenda with fear mongering. Look at the distrust we have developed towards other people in the last two decades? Today, we would rather trust a govt. issued ID like Aadhar or PAN card than trust a live person. Shows like CID and Crime Patrol which pushed the subtle narrative that the unknown person you're about to meet could be the worst scammer in known history were also responsible for this.

Narratives like these create the kind of distrust and polarization in society which become fertile ground for politicians to then do their thing. They tend to arm twist our psyche into thinking that the authority is always the "good guy" whereas people are the "bad guys" which isn't a very healthy thing for the society at all. But in order for this to happen, ghettos with over burdened population must be created.

A lean population will be well-educated, thinking and progressive. It will tend to reject the idea of authoritarianism and start thinking about real change in society like better living standards, technological progress, etc. For this very reason, the problem of overpopulation will never reach mainstream journalism or even youtube journalism. For this very reason, smart cities will ever remain a distant promise, they will never actually materialize. For this very reason, big tech and corporates will ever remain in select ghettos/metros like Delhi/Mumbai/Bengaluru, they will never go to smaller tier-2 cities and build stuff there. The moment they go there, this ghettoization and authoritarianism will stop and that will be a problem.

But I really hope that at least some people will have the vision to see the larger picture of what's going on and start doing something about it, or at least start acknowledging that over population or ghettoization is a problem.

So from earliest childhood, I have experienced that from time to time the electrical grid becomes unavailable for use and it can take days or even weeks to restore service. I'm having trouble comprehending the scope, scale and plausibility of what changes would need to be made to increase the electrification of everything in the way that is being pushed by policy advisors.

Everyone is pushing electric cars. I think it's a great idea, but I have questions about how the grid can support it.

People tell me that the next big advancement in the workplace is going to be the incorporation of artificial intelligence. Doesn't AI require servers on a massive scale? How plausible is it for AI to reach all corners of society and economy on our existing grid or reasonable expectations for plausible improvement of the grid?

The banks seem to be lobbying for the substitution of electronic accounts for cash. Again, electric power is not always available. Also some people who need to use money don't have homes and can't reliably charge electronics. If I remember correctly the payment system went down in Canada a while ago and people without cash were out of luck.

What insight can you share with me?

The idea of what it means to be a man has evolved significantly over the last century. We can build a fresh perspective on understanding masculinity beyond the stereotypical confines of strength, stoicism, and dominance. I appreciate Deimos trying out new groups and allowing topics to flourish. I could see this group having healthy discussions about the diverse experiences and expectations of men in today's society.

I envision topics on personal anecdotes, insights, and questions. I wanted to list out a few possibilities for future discussions that are top of mind.

1. The changing roles and responsibilities of men in personal and professional life.
2. The impact of societal norms and expectations on men's mental health.
3. Embracing vulnerability and emotional openness.
4. Men's role in promoting gender equality and mutual respect.
5. The significance of self-care and well-being in men's life.
6. How men can effectively communicate their emotions, needs, and concerns.
7. Relationships, expectations, and stereotypes

While not comprehensive, it's a start of areas we may consider. What are your thoughts on what this group could be?

EDIT - Grammar and Summary 7/9/2023 @3 pm mountain

Hello, everyone. It's encouraging to see such in-depth and thoughtful conversations on ~life.men. I wanted to take a moment to recap the significant themes I read up to this point. This is high level, so please correct me if I got it wrong.

Our discussions around Stoicism have been quite enlightening, and we've recognized its potential to encourage self-control and inner resilience. Nevertheless, we've also acknowledged its potential misuse, which might inadvertently promote unhealthy aspects of masculinity. This is a subject that requires more nuanced exploration.

We've unanimously expressed the need for a supportive environment for men of all identities. This includes cis, gay, trans, and men of all other identifications. Despite potential challenges such as toxicity and inactivity, many believe this forum can serve as a respectful and positive space to engage in discussions about contemporary masculinity.

Conversations have emphasized challenging traditional gender norms and fostering inclusivity. There's been a strong consensus against defining masculinity by outdated stereotypes. We've expressed a shared commitment to creating an environment welcoming everyone, regardless of gender identity. We also acknowledge the role of diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds in shaping our understanding of gender, which we deeply value.

The topic of men's role in promoting gender equality has been prominent. We agree on the importance of men as allies in this movement. Tackling the rigid roles defined by patriarchal norms is crucial, as is having open and transparent conversations on these issues. Progress in gender equality benefits everyone - it's not a zero-sum game.

We've also delved into gender norms, roles, and the usage of gendered language. It's been encouraging to see such scrutiny of societal expectations and a strong emphasis on promoting universally beneficial values and inclusivity. There's a shared understanding of the complexity of gendered language and how it can both define personal identity and represent broader affiliations.

We've explored varied experiences in male-specific spaces. From the importance of representing all demographics to discussing the challenges of modern fatherhood, we've covered extensive territory. There's a shared commitment to guard against potential toxicity and ensure balance in all our discussions.

We have expressed the importance of focused discussions on men's experiences. Challenging assumptions about masculinity and addressing men's issues from multiple perspectives can impact our society.

I'm new to Tildes and not sure where to go from here. Given all the valuable insights and themes we've gathered, how can we adopt draft guidelines for our community? I suspect we can see how this develops organically, but I appreciate approaching things intentionally. Thanks for all the comments and discussions. It has me thinking much more broadly!

What the recent Reddit protest cemented in my mind is how ineffective protest tends to be the larger and more entrenched an established order is. There's no real incentive to change because ultimately everyone knows that the protestors have little recourse.

If you want to enact change, just trying to get people enraged and trying to get them to express that rage is not a great tactic. What you need as an alternative for people to go to instead, because that's the only real threat that matters to the establishment, the threat of being replaced.

So to that end, I'd like to start a conversation about what it is that people need, and how we can arrange structures to get those things without needing to rely on external actors who don't have your interests at heart.

For example, community mesh networks are a way of expanding internet into more of a public amenity so everyone can have access to it.

Virtual power plants can allow communities to produce their own power reliably and reduce their reliance on major power providers.

These are the kinds of things I am interested in. I feel that the most effective way to push back against profiteering corporations is to simply reduce our need for them in the first place.

What are some good community oriented solutions to societal needs that you feel deserve more attention and interest?

It feels like in the last few years so many companies are becoming incredibly greedy in a chance to try and raise profits and please the shareholders, companies hoping that people will comply as they have no choice and give away more of their money to allow these companies to make record levels of profits.

It seems like people are getting less and less and what they have left the companies just want more and more from everyone. I'm not referencing any specific company here but I have seen these trends in the last couple of years get a lot worse.

Customer Impact

• Raising prices there is some valid reasons to raise prices, but sometimes prices are raised just as a way to make more money quickly.
• Quality reduction it feels like companies are asking more money for less quality goods more than ever.
• Excessive manipulative marketing especially on social media and other playes which can misleed people.
• Data explotation companies mis-using peoples data just so they can make some quick money.

Employee Impact

• Wage stagnation Despite the soaring profits many companies refusing to increase wages, leading to financial insecurity.
• Unfair labor practices Companies expecting more from their employees for less money basically.
• Job insecurity replacing workers with automation and outsourcing to cut costs.
• Mental health high pressure enviroments to force profit-driven companies causing record levels of mental health issues.

Society and Enviromental Impact

• Polluting Companies prioritising profits over the enviroment leading to pollution, waste etc
• Economic Inequality Coporate greed leading to income disparities, undermining social coheison.
• Unfair influence on policy Companies using their power and wealth to influence policy making

My question is, when is enough is enough? At what stage should something be done? Anything? to stop corporate greed from runing society?

What areas of human activity are currently experiencing a time of great advancement or a remarkable surge in quality?

This is a call for positivity, if possible please refrain from irony or backhanded pessimism such as "We are in the golden age of assholes" or something.

Thanks ;)

Stories involving dragons tend to be in medieval periods so maybe we can try to extrapolate forward in time a bit. Dragons could be from any mythologies or fictions of your fancy!

For my take, a dragon is a flying fire-breathing giant lizard with the size and toughness of a big building. I believe a critical factor is how tamable dragons are. If not at all, they'd go from something humans fear and run away from, then being hunted for glory and materials, then being protected in conservation areas to prevent going extinct. If they can be fully domesticated (like dogs), they could expedite for warfare, transportation and industrialized metalwork. The most interesting scenario imo is the in-between where they could only be partially trained. Maybe a skilled trainer can get them to behave 80% of the time but there's a low but significant chance that they get agitated and wreck havoc. How do we make use of them while ensuring safety and intervenability?

On the cultural side, we might not have as many myths and legends about dragons anymore. We might find the idea of giant flying fire creatures utterly mundane (phoenixes might be less interesting by relation even if they still don't exist in this universe). What would we mythologize about instead?