Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, the low fertility rate is a problem for South Korea. But they know what caused it, and that it is fixable. A recent article in the Financial Times is on point:

"The short-sighted, small-family campaigns of the 1970s and 80s played a role in the current predicament — “One child per family is still too many for Korea” was the slogan then. But experts agree that there are two outstanding culprits today: the exorbitant cost of education and housing. Fearful of these twin expenses, young couples have not dared to have and raise children.

The government may be able to find a way to deal with the housing issue. Agencies can control housing prices through taxation and construction permits, and offer preferential packages to families with young children through special laws and regulation. It is difficult and costly, of course, but doable."

The experience in Australia and elsewhere indicates that fertility rates are sensitive to government policies.

[Edouardo]

I've seen on-line reports that claim IQ levels as a whole have been dropping for several decades now. So I guess that we are, truly, "dumbing down" -- and measurably so, too.

Catch a view of the movie "Idiocracy" for a light-hearted look at the phenomenon -- it's fast becoming self-prophetic.

"...Never in the entire history of humankind have so very many known so very little about so very much..."

[Mounce574]

I believe we are in the process of becoming less evolved. When I was in school(which during the 80s and late 90s) I learned how to do math by writing out the problem, I could multiply, divide, add, subtract, and never used a calculator. I learned how to write in cursive. I didn't learn about critical race theory, gender identity, or any other social construct. I fully believe in "Facts don't care about feelings." Now, students use a smart-phone to do everything from communicating, taking pictures, "Googling" answers, and socializing with strangers they have never met. Isolation causes a person's mental ability to decline- as proven during the lockdowns that occurred during 2020. Instead of going outside and playing with friends (which allows for socialization and acceptance until somebody tells them otherwise), children are glued to computer screens, smart phones, and other media. They are not longer required to learn how to write in cursive and they are asked how they feel inside about their sexuality.
Our political environment isn't much better. Watching the State of The Union by Biden was humiliating. Republicans say one thing, Democrats say the opposite. Finger pointing like kindergarten children rather than working to find a solution seems to be the way our government (in the United States) works. Since the future of our world is in the hands of children, it would seem that our future leaders will be unable to make an intelligent, informed decision because they will lack social ability, common sense, and true creativity.

[Afam Okonkwo]

The concept of de-evolution is not supported by evolutionary theory or evidence. Evolution is a non-directional process that results in changes in populations over time based on environmental pressures and genetic variation. It does not imply a progression towards greater complexity or perfection, nor does it support the idea of organisms reverting to a more "primitive" state

[Lagayascienza]

Correct. The term “de-evolution” is not a useful one. Organisms might take different evolutionary pathways but that is not "de-evolution". It is a continuation of evolution. For example, let's say there is a species of fish that finds its way into a stream that is linked to a cave system. Some of the fish enter the caves. Within the cave there is no light so eyes are useless. The fish cannot find their way out. However, the fish manage to survive on small crustaceans which the fish can can feel with their barbels in the mud of the stream bed. The fish are able to survive and breed successfully with the cave system. Eventually, the "expense" of producing useless eyes is selected against by evolution and the fish becomes a species with no eyes. However, the fish has not "de-evolved". It has continued to evolve along a different pathway to successfully fill a new ecological niche.

The idea that we might "de-evolve" is similarly untenable. Like 99.9% of all species, we are likely to eventually go extinct, or to evolve into something different. But we will never "de-evolve".

[mark liu]

I personally would say that we have not yet "de-evolved" per say. More that our evolution has stagnated or slowed down. Physically it is speculated that due to the use of glasses, our children and future generations may well have worsening eyesight as currently those with worse eyesight overall are not excluded from the gene pool as seen in the past, before the use of glasses.

That being said, I am excited for the future of our evolution. I do truly believe our future holds exciting developments for us on a mental plane. With so many of us online and connecting with one another in ways not possible before, who is to say that we are not currently evolving through our new ideas and collaborations with one another.

[Pattern-chaser]

Now, students use a smart-phone to do everything from communicating, taking pictures, "Googling" answers, and socializing with strangers they have never met. Isolation causes...

First you describe social communication, then you seem to call it "isolation", presumably because it isn't face-to-face. That doesn't seem to follow, does it? Isolation is pretty much the opposite of socialising...

[mark liu]

Now, students use a smart-phone to do everything from communicating, taking pictures, "Googling" answers, and socializing with strangers they have never met. Isolation causes...

First you describe social communication, then you seem to call it "isolation", presumably because it isn't face-to-face. That doesn't seem to follow, does it? Isolation is pretty much the opposite of socialising...

I’d say isolation is more of a lack of contact for the sake of contact with other people. Isolation is perhaps feeling of loneliness and i’m sure we can agree that so often we have had meeting full discussion over the internet but still have been left with a feeling of emptiness due to a lack of the simple in person factor.

[Pattern-chaser]

I’d say isolation is more of a lack of contact for the sake of contact with other people. Isolation is perhaps feeling of loneliness and i’m sure we can agree that so often we have had meeting full discussion over the internet but still have been left with a feeling of emptiness due to a lack of the simple in person factor.

Contact for the sake of contact with other people is something I would actively avoid. Not contact, but contact for its own sake. What's the point of that?

[Lagayascienza]

I agree mark liu that there is something special about communication "in the flesh" that is more satisfying than electronic communication. Even a hand written letter seems more satisfying to me than an email. I used to love letters from girlfriends when I could smell their perfume on the paper as well as admire their handwriting and the content of the letter. But people rarely wrote on paper any more. And I agree with Mounce that physical isolation online rather than getting out and meeting people, is sub-optimal. But I guess some communication is better then no communication. Some folks are old or ill and can't get out any more and the internet can be a lifesaver for them. And then there are those that just don't enjoy being physically with others.

[LuckyR]

I agree mark liu that there is something special about communication "in the flesh" that is more satisfying than electronic communication. Even a hand written letter seems more satisfying to me than an email. I used to love letters from girlfriends when I could smell their perfume on the paper as well as admire their handwriting and the content of the letter. But people rarely wrote on paper any more. And I agree with Mounce that physical isolation online rather than getting out and meeting people, is sub-optimal. But I guess some communication is better then no communication. Some folks are old or ill and can't get out any more and the internet can be a lifesaver for them. And then there are those that just don't enjoy being physically with others.

Online "communities" are being alone together.

[Pattern-chaser]

Online "communities" are being alone together.

...or being together, alone?

[mark liu]

Online "communities" are being alone together.

...or being together, alone?

Any community is simply a collection of people, thus we are never alone. In that sense however, some communities may be of a better quality based simply due to the fact they are in person. Simply put, there are things you can do in person that you can't do online.

[mark liu]

I agree mark liu that there is something special about communication "in the flesh" that is more satisfying than electronic communication. Even a hand written letter seems more satisfying to me than an email. I used to love letters from girlfriends when I could smell their perfume on the paper as well as admire their handwriting and the content of the letter. But people rarely wrote on paper any more. And I agree with Mounce that physical isolation online rather than getting out and meeting people, is sub-optimal. But I guess some communication is better then no communication. Some folks are old or ill and can't get out any more and the internet can be a lifesaver for them. And then there are those that just don't enjoy being physically with others.

I also share the sentimental love of letters. Something that I can keep and file away, reading it on a rainy day when I need a pick me up. Simply unbeatable.

[LuckyR]

Online "communities" are being alone together.

...or being together, alone?

Any community is simply a collection of people, thus we are never alone. In that sense however, some communities may be of a better quality based simply due to the fact they are in person. Simply put, there are things you can do in person that you can't do online.

Exactly. Hence why sitting alone in a room and conversing online (with someone who is likely also alone in a room), carries a tiny fraction of the psychological benefits of conversing with someone F2F.