A discussion of idealised physical perfection and its impact

[ayase]

From an evolutionary point of view, attractiveness is a biological response which will more likely than not bring two people together. For example - 'You caught my eye' and etc. This does not necessarily mean a sexual interest as physical beauty is perceived to be inherently 'good' despite the ugliness that may lie within.

We've had a conversation which touched on this before, and I was quite surprised at how much attitude to attraction seems to differ from person to person. I was (and still am) of the opinion that for me, physical attraction and emotional attachment are completely different things. I can be very attracted to someone physically but not at all attached emotionally, and vice versa. For others, emotional attachment seemed to be a prerequisite for physical attraction.

Oddly enough, and as someone who has struggled with this problem myself, I do start to wonder what the effects of social alienation and isolation have on people's perceptions of attractiveness. Perhaps when we get more used to seeing pictures of people we find attractive than actually meeting people we find attractive, our biological impulses for attraction diminish and are replaced by a more reasoned, distant aestheticism instead. Something to ponder.

I don't believe humanity will become one, but it will be divided by what it already is: rich and poor. The rich will be attractive because they will ultimately control eugenics and thus control 'physical attractiveness' to a point. The human race will not homogenise, social mobility restricts this and also our very genone - because the imperfections make us who we are.

And I would tend to agree. When I talked about homogenisation I was referring to culture and society - the creation of a monoculture encompassing most of the world's population. My point about humanity becoming identical physically (I don't think that will happen) was that it's really the only way prejudice could ever be eliminated, precisely because of the bias we show towards or against those who are attractive/unattractive to us due to the genetic reasons you have highlighted.

I think it's only worthwhile improving yourself so that you can help someone else, and don't get me wrong you could decide to improve your looks (and have surgery) so that you feel more confident and thus can give more towards others. But I think it's very important to at least have that clear in the mind, and not get caught up chasing your own tail round in circles.

A perfectly valid opinion, and if you feel you gain more from a life devoted to helping others then knock yourself out. Personally I condone (and practice) self improvement for the benefit of the self. I've come to the conclusion over the course of many years (and I used to be one of the loudest socialists you could hope to find; this certainly wasn't bred into me or indoctrination of any kind, but the result of experience) that people in the main are not particularly deserving of anything more than the most basic courtesy, and that helping them simply makes them weaker and more dependant. As someone who appreciates strength and independence in people, this seems wrong.

 

[Vashdaman]

A perfectly valid opinion, and if you feel you gain more from a life devoted to helping others then knock yourself out. Personally I condone (and practice) self improvement for the benefit of the self. I've come to the conclusion over the course of many years (and I used to be one of the loudest socialists you could hope to find; this certainly wasn't bred into me or indoctrination of any kind, but the result of experience) that people in the main are not particularly deserving of anything more than the most basic courtesy, and that helping them simply makes them weaker and more dependant. As someone who appreciates strength and independence in people, this seems wrong.

I certainly condone improvement of the self just for the self as well, as sometimes there are just certain things one needs to achieve, things which are truly good for them. I just find it benefits me to keep that purpose in mind, as it helps me stay on track to not lose sight of what's important. But ultimately well you boil it down, anything that is truly good for you is also equally as good for the universe, as long as you are actually improving it will never just benefit you.

I don't agree that the mass populace is not worthy of help though, what we need is more people showing compassion. And the aim is to always help empower people as oppose to cause dependence, just as the teachers who taught you to read and write empowered you.

 

[ilmaestro]

Surprisingly interesting thread for one of your multi-quote-a-thons!

Quick comments on two things, since I'm not really looking to get the thread going again this long after it seems to have died:

Oddly enough, and as someone who has struggled with this problem myself, I do start to wonder what the effects of social alienation and isolation have on people's perceptions of attractiveness. Perhaps when we get more used to seeing pictures of people we find attractive than actually meeting people we find attractive, our biological impulses for attraction diminish and are replaced by a more reasoned, distant aestheticism instead.

I don't know if you're saying that this is something you believe to be true, or randomly positing a theory, but I think that the latter does indeed appear to happen - until you actually run into someone "in the flesh", to be slightly overly literal.

Personally I condone (and practice) self improvement for the benefit of the self. I've come to the conclusion over the course of many years (and I used to be one of the loudest socialists you could hope to find; this certainly wasn't bred into me or indoctrination of any kind, but the result of experience) that people in the main are not particularly deserving of anything more than the most basic courtesy, and that helping them simply makes them weaker and more dependant. As someone who appreciates strength and independence in people, this seems wrong.

A top tier theory, but I think it has a bad matchup against the old cliche of "helping people to help themselves". If you think you got to where you are purely off your own bat, you are deliberately ignoring so many things it's not even worth listing them.

 

[ayase]

I think it fell off when the topic changed direction (probably those thoughts did ultimately lead to our other musings). Me and vash really are better off carrying on debates in the general conversation area given that we seem to go from A-X fairly quickly.

I'm not suggesting people get to where they are in life by themselves, but it is their own actions in taking advantage of the help offered to them which get them there. If someone offers you help you don't tend to turn it down if it has no negative conditions attached (the old "gift-horse in the mouth" adage) but helping yourself is still a hindrance to others and helping others still hinders yourself, even if unconsciously. I'm not suggesting one way is bad or another good, but given that there are finite resources (and time) people are only able to prosper at the expense of others.

It can be argued that by "helping people help themselves" you are essentially just teaching them how to realise their selfishness. If it is the case (and again, I'm not saying it definitely is) that all people are naturally selfish but some lack the ability to realise their desires, then it would be pretty daft for the people who do have the ability and have more of the resources to teach others how to take it from them. In fact, it would even be in their interests to make them even more uninformed, helpless and reliant on them. If that were the case, then what we would expect to see as time goes on is say, more resources in the hands of fewer people, fewer self employed people and more employees, tax loopholes for the wealthiest to exploit, an somewhat unhealthily close relationship relationship between the most powerful people in business, government and media...

tl;dr: I think if you were to succeed flawlessly in giving somebody the skills to help themselves and they then used these skills to good effect, they'd have a good chance of becoming the kind of person who would actively work to prevent other people from being able to do what they did. That's how you end up with people like Thatcher, who tell people they have to work hard to prosper while at the same time making it harder for the people at the bottom to even work, let alone prosper from it. Human selfishness - now that's the real challenge.

 

[ilmaestro]

Haha, some excellent points, but I'm worried that replying might lead you further down the worrying conspiracy theory garden path that you were flirting with at the end of paragraph three. I agree that the Lizard Jews would not be as generous as others when it comes to providing resources for other people, but I think you are making assumptions about an "end game" for humanity that simply doesn't exist for some people - I'm not sure if this is just you being slightly uncomfortable with your own outlook on life/other people, though, and wanting to hope that it isn't true that there is another way to go about things.

/pop psychology

 

[Vashdaman]

Me and vash really are better off carrying on debates in the general conversation

Oh if only you could have foreseen what we would do to General conversation thread...