Too much paranoia?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Health
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In our society today, we are constantly having messages of fear imposed upon us. Most of this comes from the numerous news stories on violence and death your always hearing brainwashed into you. Mostly though "we" are always coming out with new studies that put more fear in our heads even when there isn't any need to. Various precautionaries are engraved in our head to make us live life in a very sheltered and protected way, making us more us less, spoonfed and shielded from the real issues and problem that we must learn to deal with. What i've been noticing is most of these new ideas are contradicting to an extent that what hasn't hurt us for as long as we can remember is now all the sudden some terrible fatality that must be avoided at all costs. I think, why discover these knew hazards and harms if there is nothing to be fearful of in the first place and no reason to research in the first place, only our curiousity. I just think our world has induced such a paranoic state in which we are very cautious. I for one do not think this is healthly especially when we can't even walk outside without thinking to ourselves "There are thousands of germs, hazards, and possible dangers outside that are waiting to get me". Not to be morbid but there are innumerable ways to die and half of them aren't even avoidable. It seems like we spend way to much time and effort discovering all the possible methods of becoming ill or die for our own good. Every time someone pushes the limits, exceeds the boundaries, and puts their life on the line, we as a race evolve and grow. With all these restrictions set upon whether its mental or physical, limit us from many things. This idea goes back to having more knowledge can not always be beneficial. We analyze areas that don't need to be analyzed just because we'd like to find out "why". With this analyzation comes new discoveries that prove many common actions, activities, ect. to have a negative impact on us even though we have been living with these dangers for a while without a problem to date.

In very simple terms "what we don't know won't kill us"

My main message here is: Is analyzing areas that don't specifically need to be analyzed always beneficial? Or will we just find more reasons to "stay indoors" and be fearful of the various risks or even everday routines.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,030 • Replies: 20

No top replies

@Yogi DMT,

Fear gets played on - its image gets Ratings, it's avoidance translates to dollars. These, in turn, magnify the natural urge to avoid pain. The cycle begins anew.

Yea I think we do play it too safe often and I like your example of taking a walk. I've run across a number of people who take this "germ avoidance" to extremes. Case in point: The disgust and hoopla over chip double-dipping. Oh my god... relax, people!

Good issue

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Exactly. What i had in mind when i was thinking of this was germophobes who wouldn't drink out fo the same drink as someone else. Millions of people do that, they don't die or even get sick. We are way too catious about pretty much everything these days. You only have one life you may as well life it and not worry about all the possible hazards that can kill you because there is a 99.99% chance they won't!

2 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Unfortunately bad news is good news and good news is no news

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;64227 wrote:

Exactly. What i had in mind when i was thinking of this was germophobes who wouldn't drink out fo the same drink as someone else. Millions of people do that, they don't die or even get sick. We are way too catious about pretty much everything these days. You only have one life you may as well life it and not worry about all the possible hazards that can kill you because there is a 99.99% chance they won't!

I agree. It is not the germs that kill you, it is the overabundance of germs, which are cultivated in an environment that is conducive to germ growth - e.g. one that is full of fats, sugars, insufficient fluids and movement.

For example, if a pond is flowing, it will continue to be alive. But if it dammed up, then it will become dead and all kinds of insects will begin to multiply. The same with the human body.

But, the pharmaceutical and medical professions figured out how to make money a long time ago. First, they got the government to put them on a pedestal, by allowing only them to provide medical advice (a monopoly), and then they came out with the ultimate slogan, which no one dares challenge:

"If you don't do what we say you should do, you will DIE!"

Now that is fear. Smile

Every year, over 36,000 people die from the flu. So far a handful have died from the swine flu. This, however, does not deter the medical profession from scaring the heck out of everyone, and then of course come up with some vaccine, that they will prescribe, way after the flu season has passed. It's interesting to observe.

Rich

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

'Paranoia' has been redefined as "a heightened state of awareness"!
If you think that the folks are out to screw you, you are probably correct!

2 Replies

@nameless,

Is it overinvestigation that is the problem, or is the problem underinvestigation and the twisting of investigation for selfish purposes?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;68766 wrote:

Is it overinvestigation that is the problem, or is the problem underinvestigation and the twisting of investigation for selfish purposes?

I think it is a bit of both. People love to explore. Fine. They also like to make money. Fine. The combination of both is lethal! Look what I have! Run for your life!

Rich

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;64108 wrote:

In very simple terms "what we don't know won't kill us"

My main message here is: Is analyzing areas that don't specifically need to be analyzed always beneficial? Or will we just find more reasons to "stay indoors" and be fearful of the various risks or even everday routines.

If you only analyze it by emotions, it is bad, if you do it sientific it may lead to beneficial knowledge.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;64227 wrote:

Exactly. What i had in mind when i was thinking of this was germophobes who wouldn't drink out fo the same drink as someone else.

If you don't care whether or not you get herpes on your mouth then be my guest...

Quote:

Certain strains of the herpes virus cause cold sores. Herpes simplex virus type 1 usually causes cold sores. Herpes simplex virus type 2 is usually responsible for genital herpes. However, either type of the virus can cause sores in the facial area or on the genitals. You get the first episode of herpes infection from another person who has an active lesion. Shared eating utensils, razors and towels may spread this infection.

Gross. No thanks. Call me paranoid but I'll get my own cup. You'll feel differently if you find yourself in that unlucky 0.01%.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Aren't we all forgetting the grand example of this paranoia? Antibiotics.

[SIZE=+1]"The global increase in resistance to antimicrobial drugs, including the emergence of bacterial strains that are resistant to all available antibacterial agents, has created a public health problem of potentially crisis proportions."

[/SIZE]The very act of excluding ourselves from the natural world that supports us in every single possible way makes the exclusion all the more necessary to escape the consequences. Thus, now that antibiotics don't work as well, or many other problems like global warming, pollution, or what not - we have to further box ourselves in to escape the repercussions of boxing ourselves in. A downward spiral that is unsustainable.

Soon there will be nothing left to support us, and all the people with the technology they can no longer use will be a true fish out of water.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

It's because we're de-evolutionizing our race by not letting evolution do what it does best. We are far too focused or surviving than actually living. Trying to prevent death is not what life is about. We need to let humans survive for themselves and not let our technology assist us to the point of such an example of being kept on life support.

1 Reply

@nameless,

:perplexed:

nameless;68708 wrote:

'Paranoia' has been redefined as "a heightened state of awareness"!
If you think that the folks are out to screw you, you are probably correct!

:rolleyes:

I think she's right Alan Those psycho-twisters are oust there... But the medicins are on National Health Service @ :devilish:

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;136618 wrote:

It's because we're de-evolutionizing our race by not letting evolution do what it does best. We are far too focused or surviving than actually living. Trying to prevent death is not what life is about. We need to let humans survive for themselves and not let our technology assist us to the point of such an example of being kept on life support.

Even Ayn Rand said something similar. "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death."

The funny thing is, evolution, in your example, is responsible for its own demise. We evolved consciousness necessary to create technology to save us from disease and accidents, things which, if left to their own devices as you say, would surely weed out the weak.

But, a lot of people would say, that is no way to look at humanity and we should do all we can to save others. Some, if they were so inclined, may say that Hitler tried to develop an evolutionary superior race. But that's on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Is it a catch 22, or do you think we should just stop going to the doctor / hospital as much? Some things are more gray than just that, however. The food we eat has antibiotics, the soap we use, the hand sanitizer a lot of people use every time they touch something, etc.

Where is equilibrium, here? Where we don't let ourselves rot and die unnecessarily, but we don't weaken our immune system?

2 Replies

@bmcreider,

bmcreider;137207 wrote:

Even Ayn Rand said something similar. "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death."

The funny thing is, evolution, in your example, is responsible for its own demise. We evolved consciousness necessary to create technology to save us from disease and accidents, things which, if left to their own devices as you say, would surely weed out the weak.

But, a lot of people would say, that is no way to look at humanity and we should do all we can to save others. Some, if they were so inclined, may say that Hitler tried to develop an evolutionary superior race. But that's on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Is it a catch 22, or do you think we should just stop going to the doctor / hospital as much? Some things are more gray than just that, however. The food we eat has antibiotics, the soap we use, the hand sanitizer a lot of people use every time they touch something, etc.

Where is equilibrium, here? Where we don't let ourselves rot and die unnecessarily, but we don't weaken our immune system?

Death of the mortal body is not the end of everything indeed it is just a portal into other realms, and dimensions of everlasting existence

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Well, that's certainly your opinion, but I have to take the supernatural with a grain of salt. Why should humans be so important as to have life after death, just because we have consciousness?

1 Reply

@bmcreider,

bmcreider;137443 wrote:

Well, that's certainly your opinion, but I have to take the supernatural with a grain of salt. Why should humans be so important as to have life after death, just because we have consciousness?

It is not just humans that can advance in the afterlife, why not the animals as well

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;137465 wrote:

It is not just humans that can advance in the afterlife, why not the animals as well

What basis is there to believe either one has an afterlife? The idea sounds nice, but doesn't it have something to do with wishful thinking? Isn't the motive of, in some abstract way, avoiding death, clearly cloud one's thinking on the truth of this issue?

0 Replies

@bmcreider,

bmcreider;137207 wrote:

The funny thing is, evolution, in your example, is responsible for its own demise. We evolved consciousness necessary to create technology to save us from disease and accidents, things which, if left to their own devices as you say, would surely weed out the weak.

Yes, I've thought this sort of thing too. A species can become so smart that it blows itself up, or creates some biological weapon. And yet all of this is quite quite natural. Is anything not natural? (Of course the word is used in value judgments, but you know what i mean....)

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

This is going to be severely off topic, but no one has ever opened this can of worms for me yet...

But I propose that we will probably never run into another advanced civilization, and if we were to it would be so exceedingly rare that the timescale is geological.

I think, that as you say, life will advance to the point that it is so smart it proves itself meaningless and kills itself off. Now this theory is severely anthropologically biased because I am just basing this off of human history, but xenophobic destruction via war, or any other excuse to fight, creeps in naturally. I wonder, since evolution worked like that on Earth, wouldn't it seem to produce the same behaviors in other species on other planets? Or would they evolve completely differently?

I really do not know, this is just something I pondered the other day. I would appreciate your insight if the rambling warrants it.

1 Reply

Too much paranoia?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know