Escapism and Entertainment

[Finnish(ed)]

I believe that everything we do is escapism from what Baudrillard once called 'the desert of the real'.

All our physical and mental functions serve only to perpetuate our genes. The first requirement is survival. Most of us have the necessary faculties to pursue survival. Some time ago it meant hunting and gathering. Now it can mean something else.

The female body is a factory for human beings. Most women will have children and nearly all women want to have them at some point. The manufacturing process does not end at birth. That just provides the raw materials. Mature individual is the final product. The quality of the product varies.

The male body is a machine for injecting semen into women and fighting other males for the right to do so. Most men will have sex with women and most men want to have sex with women. Nearly all men fight other men in order to gain status and better opportunities for sex. The fighting can take a physical or social form.

These are the true facts of life. Everything else is just self-deception, delusion and mass hypnosis.

Escapism means escaping routines or reality through fantasies and daydreams.

Entertainment is something that amuses, pleases or diverts.

Are they the same thing? If not, why?

 

[Larenxis]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit. I think there's a reason for existing other than survival and reproduction. If there wasn't, why would I feel good when I'm virtuous, rather than just when I'm taking care of children? Why would I feel good when I feel free, or loved?

Oh, and men also raise children naturally.

 

[Finnish(ed)]

I agree with you on the point that people derive satisfaction from other things than reproduction. However, all the other things involve perpetuating our genes. Those genes do not have to reside in our own bodies. We feel protective of our families and feel good when they feel good. Also, what is good for our nearest and dearest and our tribe, is often also good for our own survival. After all we share many genes with our family and evolution does not care where the gene is as long as it continues to exist.

Also, this vein of thought was only to fire up the conversation. What are your thoughts on escapism and entertainment?

The meaning and functions of storytelling and myths is perhaps related to this topic but that should be another thread.

 

[Chilango2]

The female body is a factory for human beings. Most women will have children and nearly all women want to have them at some point. The manufacturing process does not end at birth. That just provides the raw materials. Mature individual is the final product. The quality of the product varies.

The male body is a machine for injecting semen into women and fighting other males for the right to do so. Most men will have sex with women and most men want to have sex with women. Nearly all men fight other men in order to gain status and better opportunities for sex. The fighting can take a physical or social form.

Ah, evolutionary psychology. Such a charmingly simple minded idea.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that the mating habits of hominds have a variety of modes, and that the physical formation of humans suggests, rather than some sort of free form polygamous existence for males, a moderate state between partnering for life (as bonobos do, I believe) and the situation most similar to the one you describe, in orangutans (except *females* do it in that family of hominadae as well, which throws a kink in your argument).

Let us also ignore, for a moment, the fact that quasi-life partnership is a perfectly viable genetic survival strategy, which happens to be particularly suited to hominds which work in small social "tribal" type groups, such as humans did in pre history and chimpanzees (our closest hominid relatives) do.

Let us instead, focus, on the fact that these alleged "universal" behaviors by men and women are not, in fact, universal across time, space, and culture. Various cultures have practiced different norms in terms of gender sexual relations (the greeks had a rough equality, the Incas vacillated back and forth between strongly matriarchal and patriarchal, etc), which presents a serious problem to any claim of universality.

Furthermore, even the most basic review of serious research as to the preferences and behaviors of the different genders will demonstrate that the impact of socialization is very deep, and is in fact almost impossible to "isolate" from other variables, due to its omni-presence. The research does, however, support the contention that stereotypical gender roles and their expression are a social construct, not a genetic one. (how complex social behaviors are genetic inheritable is another matter we will also ignore)

 

[Finnish(ed)]

Evolutionary psychology is certainly not enough to account for and explain all human behavior. One must also consider cultural evolution, but cultural evolution has not yet made it possible to reproduce in any other way, (I do believe that one day women will be able to reproduce among themselves with little help or modification, but that is another series of books entirely) and a species that does not have survival and reproduction as the prime directives, would soon become extinct. Therefore it is safe to assume that survival and reproduction are the most imperative human needs. Otherwise we would not be here.

 

[Chilango2]

Therefore it is safe to assume that survival and reproduction are the most imperative human needs. Otherwise we would not be here.

Well, yes. I did not disagree with that point. Your claim had two parts:

1) Genetic survival are imperative human needs.
2) Each gender of the human species follows genetic survival strategy described herein.

My disagreement was with the second point. A imperative for genetic survival does not, in and of itself, translate into any particular behavior. Every species that uses sexual reproduction has its own tendencies towards a particular genetic survival strategy, some partner for life, some do not, and the "social" behaviors of the species are adjusted to that purpose.

In fact, if we were were study the overall tilt of human genetic survival strategies and take them as dispositive of our "genetic tendencies" the opposite of what you claim is "the fact" would be the result.

It is not, however, my claim that this is the case. Rather, human behavior is a special case because of the development of sapience, which changes the nature and complexity of social behaviors from that seen in even other hominids by several degrees of complexity.

The very point of sapience is that it is capable of overriding genetically induced behaviors, to some degree. More to the point, any analysis of alleged human genetic behaviors that ignores the fact that humans started out as small bands of social hominids who depended on each other for survival is one that ignores what is perhaps the most central driver of human evolution.

 

[Easykill]

I don't really care, honestly. I've long decided that the meaning of life is whatever you want it to be. I just want to enjoy myself, and I've attempted to expell any ideals that aren't mine, but forced on me by evolution and soiciety. I have decided never to have kids, although I might adopt. I really don't care about what other people think, and I have no ambition but to not be homeless. I could probably be more popular if I wanted to, and get more girls, but I prefer to hang out with my freinds, who I actually like, than people who are always thinking about their social ranking. I guess my point is that maybe we HAVE been designed to work a certain way, but it allowed us to exist, and it is possible to ignore it. It's a good thing.

Damn, that sucked. Oh well.

 

[000Ronald]

I belive your method of thinking is flawed.

Isn't it a bit strange that we humans perceve things that do not exist (courage, words, the color green)? Isn't a bit strange that we are able to shape and mold the world to a certain degree? Isn't it strange that we, amongst all the living beings found and otherwise on this little blue mudball are aware of our very existence? Isn't it a bit odd that you were able to realize the rationale of the reproductive cycle?

You're taking the easy way out, appealing to mankind's lesser nature. Instead of appealing to what we are, try appealing to who we are. What you find may bring a tear to your eye.

 

[John Galt]

While I find our evoltionary history has much control over our behavior (hormonal impulses and mental health), I find that due to humanity's intelligence, we are able to rise above mere genetic instincts and focus on things that get left out of natural selection, such as art and science. We don't need a Venus de Milo to attract mates, but our intelligence allows us to perceive it as art. It's sort of ironic how evolution has shaped us to the point were it doesn't control our behavior to the extent of say, a wolf pack or termite hive. It's almost like we've outgrown it.

On the issue of whether or not entertainment is escapism, think of it this way. Our minds have been growing since homonids first developed. While this was at first, imperative to our survival, as it grew via selection of the fittest (ie. most intelligent) then we began to master survival and establish our hold on this planet. Our minds, while tailored for survival, found uses in other things. Essentially, they became bored with just living and mating.

Once we became bored, we demonstrated that we were capable of thinking beyond our own biological imperatives. We foudn ourselves with the ability to survive without completely focusing on it. While the constant threat of death had left us, the ability to fight it did not. What did we do when the reality we had known became boring and unstimulating to us? We complicated it. We added intricacies to civiliazation such as social relations, art, philosophy, anything to take our minds off the fact that as far as evolution was concerned, we had won.

So in conclusion, yes I find that entertainment along with just about every ohter mental pursuit is a form of escapism. I feel that accepting reality without modifying it, or in some cases, defying it and creating whole new realities, would drive our advanced minds mad with boredom and therefore, lead us to extinction.

 

[Finnish(ed)]

When our ancestors began to use our hands to wield tools instead of climbing in trees, natural selection began to favor larger and more complex brains so that we could make the most efficient tools and use them most efficiently. Some animals have large fangs, others have horns, thick hides, or hard shells. People have brains that facilitate planning, use of tools and cooperation. All these highly specialized traits have side-effects that can cause complications.

The side-effect of the human brain is sapience, which evolution has compensated with our over-developed imaginations. This is where we come back to entertainment and escapism. These allow us to modify existence to be more agreeable to our sensibilities.

Complex things break in complex ways.

 

[Finnish(ed)]

We claim that we are not slaves to evolution. This might be true for some of us (I'm insane so I'm free), but most of us continue to reproduce even when we have rational proof that the world is overpopulated and we might get in serious trouble because of this. People simply have their own justifications for their behavior.

Also, I recommend books by Kurt Vonnegut for anyone who is interested in existentialism, nihilism and determinism and has a twisted/dark sense of humor. Breakfast of Champions, Slaughterhouse Five and Mother Night are some of the best books ever written.

Thanks for the critical replies.

 

[Easykill]

Canada's population is dropping. Intelligence combats biological imperative, and education greatly affects intelligence. It's the poor, uneducated people who breed like rats.

Also, What I was trying to say in my previous post, is basically what Galt said.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

There's a great book on how your brain distorts reality to keep you alive:

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-its-Own-Distorts-Deceives/dp/0393062139

Here's an excerpt from the review:

"The brain, she shows, distorts reality in order to save us from the ego-destroying effects of failure and pessimism. For example, an optimist who fails at something edits the truth by blaming others for the failure and then takes complete credit for any successes. The brain also routinely disapproves of other people's behavior (how could he do that?), while at the same time interpreting one's own actions in the best possible light (I would never do that!). The brain also projects stereotypes onto others that reflect prejudicial beliefs rather than objective reality."

 

[Alphavillain]

Baudrillard is really full of pretentious wank. Sorry, but it's true. Anyone that obfuscates to such a degree is hiding the fact that they have nothing to say. Entertainment is simply a structured, culturally codified and socialised form of escapism, which is primarily the daydream. See, I can give JB a run for his money...

 

[defcon 1]

What's the meaning of life?

Is there a meaning?

If there isn't, is that a bad thing...?

I know this may sound ridiculous, but one of my fears is the responsibility of a family. If human life had no meaning, I'd be ok with that. I do find it a tad strange however, that we're the only intelligent beings on the planet and that give us an undisputed dominance.

I believe entertainment is something that entertains us. Escapism is a method of taking the mind off of something, like a bad day. A video game, movie, book or even music can serve as both.

 

[Finnish(ed)]

To Alphavillain: The quote from Baudrillard is by no means an endorsement. To be honest, I haven't looked that closely in his writing. I simply liked the artsy-literate-fag sound of it.

To Easykill: The birth rate here in Finland is also declining. This causes problems when we begin to have too many old, sick and retired people and too few people working to support the society.

There is a good article at Damninteresting.com saying that humans are not the first species to change the environment considerably and cause extinctions. I think that is a good example that people might not be quite as unique, powerful and self-aware as we tend think.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=673 (humans=bacteria)

What I perceive as escapism must also be entertaining. Otherwise I would not indulge in it. However, entertainment is not always escapism. Vonnegut's books are good examples of this. They are always realistic in their portrayal of the human condition, yet they often make me shake with mirth until my arse drops off.

Entertainment can often teach us something about ourselves and our environment. I think that we should not draw lines between what is perceived as productive and what is perceived as frivolities.

My personal Zen-ish view is that existence is the only virtue.

Finally, a Zen koan: What is the meaning of life? What is the price of toilet paper at Walmart?

 

[The Reverend]

What I perceive as escapism must also be entertaining. Otherwise I would not indulge in it. However, entertainment is not always escapism.

I have to disagree with you there. I often go on long walks and think about other things, to escape the usual grind of life. Walking doesn't entertain me, its just something I do. Think about escaping from a negative situation; your mind may come up with a way to help you cope with said negative scenario, but it won't entertain you. Escapism is a distraction from "real life" and if it's entertaining than it's a bonus.

 

[Larenxis]

This reminds me of the book 'Understanding Comics' by Scott McCloud. He said that anything that's not for the sake of survival or reproduction was art. At least that's what I remember.