Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Novan Leon said:
So how does security produce self-control or self-discipline exactly? I know I have a eliable source of food, so how does this give me self-control? I know I have an unlimited supply of cigarettes, how does this give me self-control?
EDIT: I think your reasoning is based on the assumption that excess is the result of fear, fear of lack at a later point in time. If this is correct, I can see how you're coming to the wrong conclusion.
Yes--that's exactly what I'm saying. And it's what you see out in the world all the time. I was watching Family Jewels, the Gene Simmons reality show. A guy who can never have enough money. He was at a psychologist, and he mentioned how when it was just him and his mom struggling financially in his youth, he woke up in a sweat, panicked about the feeling of being powerless.
Gene Simmons cannot stop trying to make money. I see it as a product of that early experience of feeling powerless. I say he's a pretty solid example of what I'm talking about.
This proves my point exactly.
If your theory were correct, now that Gene Simmons has tons of money, he should feel secure to stop hoarding money. Instead, his hoarding continues and no amount of money seems to satisfy, refuting your point. This would probably lead you to make the next argument: that if Gene had access to a holodeck as a child, he never would have developed these insecurities, which leads me to my next point...
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
If I'm a drug addict and I know that I have an unlimited supply of drugs, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm addicted to eating and I know that I have an unlimited supply of food, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm a porn addict and I know that I have an unlimited supply of porn, this does nothing to create self-control.
If I'm a lazy bum and I know that I never have to work, this does nothing to create self-control.
I would argue that giving someone an unlimited supply of something actually tests someone's self-control rather than enforcing it.
Number one, you're only talking about damaged people there. So are you agreeing that generations raised with Holodecks around will be much less damaged than our own?
Um, no, it would probably be the same. If anything it may be worse.
Take a child for example. Give a child unlimited access to anything that they want and what do you think would happen? The only reason adults can handle some of the things that children can't is because they exercise better judgement and the necessary self-control to handle it. The parent's job is to exercise that self-control on behalf of the child (by setting down rules and enforcing them). While Gene Simmons might not have developed an insecurity about money, you can be assured there would be other negative side effects (such as being spoiled blind).
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Number two, I think most people who engage in destructive behaviors like the ones you're describing do so *because* they're destructive. I don't think people get psychologically addicted to things because they lack self-control. They get addicted because they lack self-esteem, to return to an earlier point. And the only 'destructive' thing about a Holodeck I can think of is withdrawing from society. Which leads to:
Three things:
1. I have a hard time believing people engage in destructive behavior just for the heck of it. People's behavior becomes destructive when they desire something more than they should, and more than what is healthy for them, both physically and psychologically.
2. As I stated in my first post, self-control and self-discipline build confidence. Hard work, one result of self-discipline, leads to accomplishment and a greater level of self-esteem. People without self-esteem (ie. without self-control) tend to fall into addiction than those with a greater level of self-esteem (greater confidence as the result of great self-control).
3. The holodeck would, theoretically, give us access to as much of anything that we want, essentially sending those without good judgement and self-control into a tailspin until they die or wake up to cold hard reality and begin exercising self-control.
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Besides, how does a holodeck give someone an unlimited supply of love and hope? Hope from dying from starvation maybe, but that's about it.
Dude, people are already getting what they consider love from Real Dolls. Imagine how much more effective a Holodeck would be. I'm talking Holodeck-as-healthy-transitional-object theory here.
And you consider these people who get their 'love' from Real Dolls to be healthy individuals? Do you think a Real Doll could play the roll of a friend or loved one in helping someone out of drug addiction?
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Also, what kind of Holodecks are we talking about here? Is a minute in the Holodeck a minute in the real world? Or a second? Wouldn't that be the most powerful Holodeck of all--the one that isn't just a glorified gumball machine, but one that extends the duration of our consciousness?
I'm assuming the holodeck to be equivalent to the Star Trek: Next Generation one, space and time distortion not included.
I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. Our views on human nature are almost completely opposite. Your world is a very materialistic one wherein people's identity changes depending on their physical surroundings; if you can change people's physical surroundings, the people will change as well. My world is one where people's identity is tied to human nature, and remains constant regardless of their physical surroundings. People will always want more regardless of how much they have, and the only thing that can cause them to be satisfied is something changing internally such as the state of their mind. Many things change but people's core human nature remains the same.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this.