Every time I read something like this it makes me wonder what happened to the sciences? Is anyone really at the helm? If anyone thinks the belief that the human race can be deliberately and artifically "improved" is a viable belief, you might as well pretend that owning a yacht makes you a master of world's oceans. In fact I'd guess that you'd actually have better chances braving the seas without navigational capabilities than you would attempting to steer the human race toward anything remotely qualified as an "improvement."

Nevermind good or evil, the belief itself is flawed, and adopting it comes with baggage, such as presuppositions about what an "improvement" is and all that entails, such as notions of "inferiority".

The best we can hope to accomplish for the human race from our understanding of genetics and evolution, in my estimation, is perhaps limited to harnessing its problem-solving power in limited contexts. We can help people affected by genetic disorders, and hope for the best: that our medical advances in fact improve our evolutionary fitness as a species, but we have to remember that everything we do happens within a context of natural selection, including attempts to manipulate it, which may or may not have the intended effect on fitness, and failing to take that into consideration doesn't bode well for the positive outcome.

Belief . A hard thing to get over.

I have the same “affliction” and the exact same cynicism to all the metaphoric promising of the mood-based lovers. I’ve also been struggling quite a bit lately for that exact reason, so it’s incredibly serendipitous that I happened by your comment just now. It’s unbelievably reassuring to have someone else say the things that I’ve been thinking when they didn’t even know that I was listening. Because that makes it real. That means… you’re not saying it to make me feel better, you’re saying it because you actually believe it.

And that makes me feel a little bit less lonely, and a little bit more hopeful that this “pathology” isn’t such a horrible thing to have. Because, yeah, it is one of my favorite things about myself. And I’ll give up on this world before I give up on that part of me.

So thanks, stranger, for making me feel less crazy. I appreciate you.

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said. Second, I was talking about smoking while pregnant. Surely you at least value not harming others unnecessarily. If you don't, then you are immoral.

This is such a well-written and engaging thought experiment. Thanks for sharing.

I’ll also add my two cents and say that I think maybe Hannibal, himself, was positioned as the “monster” which the loving community might not accept. Because Moloch, despite his large stature, actually seemed to conform perfectly with the happy, loving little society that the town had created. He was a kind and open-hearted giant; just like them, only a little bigger.

But the parasite was also a living creature, and it was the parasite who was truly seen as the monster. The parasite did not conform. The parasite was not like the townspeople— the parasite was selfish and destructive toward the existence of others. The parasite was a monster; and it had to go.

So maybe Hannibal’s experiment served as a way to draw the line between that which a “loving” society was willing to look past, and that which it was not.

And I think that the connection to mental health is really interesting because of that. Was Hannibal actually self-destructive? Or was he just ashamed of some of his own selfish thoughts, his own needs and desires, and he feared that if he expressed his actual truth then he would be treated like the parasite— dangerous, unfit to be among the townspeople, and better to be eradicated.

When people are afraid that their truth will not be accepted, that their truth will make people turn against them, are they more likely to hide it? I think so. They may even become a mental/emotional hermit, refusing to let anyone see their inner truth. And when they do re-enter society, they wear a mask, or a giant suit, and pretend to be just like everyone else. They pretend that they don’t see themselves as a toxic parasite.

But being a hermit for too long will eventually get to them, because believing yourself to be a parasite to that extent I believe will lead them to one of two possible conclusions: self-destruction (if they have given up the possibility of being seen as anything other than a parasite), or a push for acceptance (if they have enough hope that they’re willing to take the chance that someone will look out for them even if they are a parasite). And so I think this is where Hannibal found himself; he chose to take the chance and trust in this loving society, but their own thinking was not quite nuanced enough, not quite understanding enough, to recognize that the parasite, too, was a living thing that may be sentient, and that may be worth keeping alive itself. Arwen killed the parasite without a second thought— without even determining what kind of parasite that it was. And that, I think, was the folly— he never stopped to question whether there was a way to save them both.

I think that integration, rather than eradication, must be the key. Moloch did not know what his problem actually was— despite his claim, it was actually untrue that Moloch would die if the parasite were left as it was. Perhaps what Moloch actually needed was a sort of counseling and therapy— a means of keeping himself alive and well without removing the parasite at all. Maybe the parasite would not seem so inevitably destructive if the proper workaround could be implemented.

Regardless, it’s definitely an interesting thought experiment. Thanks again for sharing it.

> it's to much work.

Did you mean to say "too much"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

[deleted]

Sure, but changing your mind about scenarios they are acceptable in counts.

I feel this way a lot these days. My own specific case is, I'm what you might call a "forever" lover. By which I mean, when I fall in love with someone, it basically lasts forever. I can't just "turn it off", the way that other people seem to be able to. I know that there's got to be something neurologically different about me, and others like me. But I've had to destroy certain parts of myself, because the common perception is that if someone stops loving you, you're expected to stop loving them and "get over it" eventually.

I've been forced to basically "cut out" certain parts of myself, emotionally, because my manner of loving is deemed pathological to most people. And, to me, they were some of my best aspects, my biggest strengths. It felt like killing a major part of myself. Like having to take your dog in to be put down. Except I've been through it multiple times over.

I think about this strongly in the domain of LGBTQ+ acceptance. Decades ago, homosexuality was seen as a "mental illness" by psychologists, and conversion therapy was the norm. Anything that didn't fall under cis/het rules was deemed a problem to get rid of.

The minority group wasn't seen as a group deserving its own validation, but a collection of sick (or "evil") people.

For me, well, we all know that people routinely say such things to their partner such as, "I'll love you forever, no matter what"--and while it's nice to hope for the best, in reality, when the vast majority of people say those things, they're being hopeful, romantic, and/or metaphoric.

And those people, in the majority, think that that's the case for all others as well. They're not aware that there's a smaller group of people who literally can say "I'll love you forever, no matter what" and have that be a factual statement, not just wishful thinking.

So, the people who are more "mood-based" or conditional lovers end up screwing over the lives of people who are "forever" lovers. And people do die as a result--it's one of the bigger reasons for suicides. (edit: and depression, which can cut years off of life expectancy, same with drugs.)

I guess it might not tie in that strongly to this thought experiment. But we do ask people to injure certain parts of themselves simply because "that's what works for most people". But most people aren't all people. Certain "medicines" are poisonous, or even deadly to us.

And the people in my life, like the Healer, really do want the best for me. That's definitely part of what makes it so frustrating, even maddening. It's just like being gay in a conservative community that doesn't tolerate it, and feeling like there is something wrong with you for not being "normal". Even your loved ones can't understand, and want you to change.

If this makes perfect sense to anyone, I consider you "my people". :)

just dont? i havent bought gifts for anyone in 15 years, you make shit if you have to or just give people plants.

yep.

an entire season dedicated to pretending like people care for each other. other then the family unit most people have little to no actual care for those outside that group.

for all the talk of sharing and togetherness go ask them if they would pay more taxes to help the homeless.

the spirit of christmas is mass virtue signalling by a population that spends most of its time shitting on those below them.

what christmas feeling?

its just a day like any other, one that society has decided should be used to buy loads of shit.

just because people pretend its actually about sharing, caring and family doesnt mean it isnt actually just a corporate holiday designed to churn sales.

the whole togetherness and niceness shit is literally put on and espoused by people who dont even try live like it (watch those same people when you talk about funding welfare, not so keen on sharing now are they?) all to feel good about themselves (virtue signalling is off the charts this time of year).

how many help the homeless? most just blow 1000s of crap they toss out a few months later.

there is nothing profound about christmas other than how profoundly deluded we are as a society.

not that i can think of.

personally everything is morally permissible in context (no system of morality ever conceived actually works, any system that has inflexible rules is destined to failure ie is genocide always wrong? if a nation tries to genocide you and will not stop no matter what, collectively, then surely killing them all is morally correct?).

theft, murder, lies, all are moral in certain scenarios.

and? i knew smoking was harmful before i tried it (read the studies) and yet ive been doing for 10 years with no intention to stop.

some people value different things, resulting in different morals. personally safety and security arent even in my top 3 values (honesty, integrity and personal freedom) hence why smoking being factually bad hasnt changed my behavior.

what is more moral? allowing children to teach their kids anything or having the state determine what age certain concepts like sexuality and religion should be taught? your answer will 100% be determined by your values and if you ask 10 people all will be different and none will be wrong.

>If you can’t choose what morality to believe in, it’s no use trying to convince someone to follow your morality.

does anyone 'choose' which moral theory to follow?

i would argue the one you pick is merely the one that you feel is best ie you wont be convinced by a rational argument since you never reasoned yourself into your belief in the first place.

logic works from emotion ie if you think utilitarianism is best its because you feel its best, reasoning and logic happen after the fact.

i never reasoned myself into my morals, i pick and choose based on context and use my emotions to guide my reasoning (you cannot determine which is 'better' without use of emotion)

You could still put the spoiler thing on your comment

Interesting! My doctorate is in Pharmaceutical Sciences, not Psychiatry, but I found this an engaging thought experiment anyway. I did not read your analysis because I’d prefer to come to my own conclusions but I will ask this: did Hannibal spend so much time becoming Moloch that he actually BECAME Moloch? It seems like he ultimately identified as the giant he was pretending to be. I’ve heard a saying that if one wears a mask long enough it ceases to be a mask. Obviously, Hannibal’s hypothesis was more or less proven the moment the healer enthusiastically offered aid, so why continue to his own self destruction?

Thanks for the post!

That’s incredibly thought provoking. I never considered that the ratio of extrovert vs introvert people plays a role in a harmonious society and that it’s self regulating in a way and that maybe if we were to be able to choose such trivial things as extroversion, we’d be hurting ourselves collectively.

I wonder tho, most folks want to be the opposite of what they are. Would it not self regulate in the opposite way, maybe achieving balance?

The healer had no business calling appointing themselves a specialist in a field that was new or alien to them. Arwen's compassion while virtuous and seemingly noble is akin to my dog's friendliness and eagerness to cheer me up. His specialty in this thought experiment should be limited only to what he knows to be true and work effectively and the rubbish about him speaking a verbal handshake disclaimer to moloch is where the problem lies. The allegory begs the question that if people's experiences are inherently different works only if we cannot rule out yhat human anatomy and brain chemistry isn't more close to uniform than an alien monster dialogue.

Sorry! Tried my best to not give too much away! It’s fab so far

Sorry this is long and not sure what you wanted but the story and questions set my mind racing.

I really enjoyed thinking about this. The questions were really interesting.

I often wonder about doctors and/or therapists. Do they trust what the patient says? How can they be sure the patient is saying true things? Do they think people are self-destructive because they can’t extricate themselves from family, jobs, partners, practices that are unhealthy? Does the doctor or therapist want to ask more questions of people on this subject but feel it might damage a sensitive system set up by the patient just to survive? They may not want to rock the boat? Or they don’t have TIME to go that deep? Or they already know that some humans are going to be this way? The doctor is more clinical and wants numbers: BP cholesterol etc.. but needs to know also if patients are safe in their house or depressed? All this takes time to gather and the patient may not be able to think fast enough to be truthful about any of it, if they are in a bad situation. Obviously, Hannibal had his mind set when he went in as monster. Most patients see a doctor once a year or less and are not thinking what questions will be asked. Or what help can be obtained. They are just not self-aware. They want help with one issue.

The therapist still has limited time but how deep does he/she want to explore? They both see plenty of humans and know that humans don’t always follow nutritional and exercise advice, many humans don’t take their meds. Do doctors or therapist really ever get answers to these questions? Can the patient ever really explain the why of it? Does the patient think they know when they will die? Do they already have a sense of how they will die and are comfortable with that? They will die like grandma died…. When it comes time to die, will they have regrets?

I was interested in the guilt of the healer. He thought the voice sounded like his friend but he didn’t ask? He didn’t question the monster more? Did he try hard enough to diagnose the situation? Since he didn’t know Hannibal was the puppeteer: If it had been me I would have been sad and angry. Guilty. I think guilt is inevitable in this situation because a person died. Why would my friend trick me like that? I would have wondered if he got tired of being a hermit yet couldn’t make himself give up the title and go back to living with others. Was it ego? Did he use the healer to commit suicide? That would make me/healer angry too. With suicide there are no answers. All you are left with is questions. Why don’t humans ask deeper questions? I wonder this all the time. I try to devise better questions, myself.

Thanks for the thought provoking experiment.

What really struck me was that Moloch and Hannibal are one and the same; Moloch being essentially a large mask. People truly can become their masks, they become inextricable. Perhaps Hannibal really would have been unable to be removed alive once he had fully inhabited the giant anyways...

Spoiler alert please! I have this book on hold 🥹😭

This is one of this most difficult issues we are investigating at the moment, I think. Recent developments in neuroscience are forcing more and more scientists to consider panpsychist-like perspectives. The more things to which we ascribe experience, the more we need to consider whether or not we are causing those things experiences of suffering.

I appreciate the included analysis at the end. I understand your point much better through the story and analysis and i think it’s well considered and written.

I’m reading Cormac McCarthy’s The Passenger right now. I’m not quite half through but the girl has “imaginary friends” and the electro shock treatment she receives burns her friends. The pills she takes makes them disappear and she missed them.

Your point is important to consider, I think.