Pinker pred andjelima bolje prirode

William Murderface wrote:

Hubert de Montmirail wrote:

Farmaceutskoj industriji odgovara da se drastično smanji broj onih koji koriste njihove lekove?

U, dobar!

паће wrote:

Hubert de Montmirail wrote:
Farmaceutskoj industriji odgovara da se drastično smanji broj onih koji koriste njihove lekove?

Нешто се мислим да не, али не тако како мислиш. Као што је Форд калкулисао да ли да лепи или закива пакне за кочнице, па сабрао број потенцијалних тужби, одштета за повређене и погинуле, сравнио са разликом у трошковима производње, и навалио са лепком. Јер је јефтиније за цео један цент по колима.

Лекова који праве штету има онолико, али нема директних отрова, него је штета натенане и дугорична. А онда, ем је доказивање компликовано ем је у ствари чешћи узрок садејство са другим лековима, што се не испитује нарочито опширно - тих других лекова има на стотине - него само са лековима које најчешће узимају пацијенти којима је намењен. После у рлу испадну онолике комбинације, или се дозе повећавају, или се лек узима годинама а не колико се очекивало...

Нпр. ефедрин, који је пре отприлике 15-18 година био најновија дрога за мршављење, јер упумпава животни елан па убрзава сагоревање калорија. Док није наишао низ самоубистава који је на крају приписан ефедрину. После више нема ни класичних капи за нос, јер садрже ефедрин, него су измислили неке нове, које баш и нису тако ефикасне као класични бенил, ал' јебига, склоњено.

Што се све исподогађало већ више пута, па се број корисника лекова није смањио. Јер о куповини не одлучују они. Ово је асиметрично тржиште, где муштерија у просеку нема појма.

А како изгледа то гурање лекова преко лекара видели смо већ и овде. По илегалним старачким домовима се неуролози погоде да отприлике месечно обиђу станаре, и онда смо имали случај да препише нешто (типа 5000 динџи тура) против халуцинација и дезоријентације. Лек нов, тек кренула производња, никад чули... ал' погледамо шта пише тамо у ситним словима. "... нуспојаве: може да изазове халуцинације и дезоријентацију". Некоме смо ово већ причали, прекинуо нас на пола и сам завршио.

‘Mindfully detaching’ from the tsunami of toxic sludge that surrounds you so that you can dispassionately observe it kind of misses the point… which is you’re surrounded by a tsunami of toxic sludge and that’s why you think you need ‘mindfulness’.

What is astonishing about mindfulness, as with similar mental health paradigms, is its complete refusal to engage with any thought of changing that environment. The sheer prevalence of mental illness today must surely contextualise our medical, cultural and public policy responses. It is not ‘chemical imbalance,’ nor an ‘inability to live in the present’ but the collective structure of our very lives which causes mental distress...

I don’t mean, here, to pick on mindfulness specifically. It follows the same practical exigencies as cognitive behavioural therapy and medication, in trying essentially to make people’s lives more manageable.

I have no doubt it has helped many people, in the same way as medication has helped me.

It does, however, exemplify a profound tendency in our conception of mental illness, to completely depoliticise its incidence, seeking the quickest and most cost-effective means of returning the patient to functionality within a certain (neo-liberal) milieu. It certainly does not afford us a means of assessing the extent to which this milieu itself may be the problem.

My generation’s dubious inheritance from the baby-boomers – that mixed bag of Hendrix, impossible home ownership and inaction on climate change – includes the worn adage that “the personal is political.” Nowhere does this claim resound as strongly as in the sphere of mental health, where we must come to see our personal struggles as a collective response to the consequences of rampant neo-liberal capitalism, and a culture which emphasises ‘productivity’ over people.

What we must never do, no matter how desperate we become, is accept the present moment without judgement, and defer all thought of a better future.

But after steeping yourself in their work, you begin to wonder if all their upbeat factoids really do speak for themselves. For a start, why assume that the correct comparison to be making is the one between the world as it was, say, 200 years ago, and the world as it is today? You might argue that comparing the present with the past is stacking the deck. Of course things are better than they were. But they’re surely nowhere near as good as they ought to be. To pick some obvious examples, humanity indisputably has the capacity to eliminate extreme poverty, end famines, or radically reduce human damage to the climate. But we’ve done none of these, and the fact that things aren’t as terrible as they were in 1800 is arguably beside the point.

Blind Lime Pie wrote:Da, libertarijanci i novi optimisti su opčinjeni tehnološkim progresom, često do nivoa potpunog slepila. Već neko vreme tragam za jednim domaćim tekstom u kome je autor tvrdio da se osamdesetih godina u SFRJ živelo mnogo lošije nego što se obično tvrdi, i to ilustrovao time da tada kod nas nije bilo moćnih računara.

Arkady Ivanovich wrote:nista galaksija i misedo?

Gargantua wrote:zx spectrum ftw!

For the sceptical reader the whole strategy of the book looks like this. Take a highly selective, historically contentious and anachronistic view of the Enlightenment. Don't be too scrupulous in surveying the range of positions held by Enlightenment thinkers - just attribute your own views to them all. Find a great many things that happened after the Enlightenment that you really like. Illustrate these with graphs. Repeat. Attribute all these good things your version of the Enlightenment. Conclude that we should emulate this Enlightenment if we want the trend lines to keep heading in the right direction. If challenged at any point, do not mount a counter-argument that appeals to actual history, but choose one of the following labels for your critic: religious reactionary, delusional romantic, relativist, postmodernist, paid up member of the Foucault fan club.