Prompted by “Recognize the high cost of trying to do it all”: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/stress-management/expert-blog/personal-and-professional-burnout/bgp-20124795
The message in the prompting piece exemplifies a serious red flag towards civilization.
A healthy work ethic makes sense, because healthy stress strengthens the exerciser of that ethic.
However, balance is required for stability in literally 100% of the systems (living or not) that humanity has ever encountered, and that literally means trillions upon trillions of systems from the largest known scale in the cosmos down through the tiniest one.
It makes perfect sense for civilization to encourage individual balance between a healthy work ethic and a healthy relaxation ethic to naturally collectively improve health (and reduce the unhealthy burden on the healthcare system), but the latter ethic is still (thankfully less so, but) dominantly socially applied to minor experience (e.g. working at least one job for money the majority of the week, while sometimes working the rest of the time to meet family needs/desires).
The result of unhealthy stress leads to all sorts of problems (including drug/sex/food/etc. abuse, all forms of criminal violence, and even stupidity itself), and one can logically conclude unhealthy stress is fundamentally the only problem within humanity.
Instead of passing an obscene amount of unhealthily stressful and liberty-infringing laws with historically questionable results to regulate society, perhaps sound reasoning should finally dominantly press for a “war” (actually a grand public effort based upon an entertaining, honest, and perpetual educational approach) on unhealthy stress itself.
Toughness is too often measured in the ability to press on with work upon unhealthy fatigue, when logic concludes that toughness is a measure of knowing when (and being able to) balance healthy work and relaxation ethics. Survival of the fittest sensibly demands no less from each of us.
As law abuse is logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction, the unhealthy stress applied by publicly allowing the people in power spanning the private and public sectors to shape law (demonstrably primarily for their benefit) upon a weak basis (or a purely subjective, so unfair and therefore unjust, one) must stop. A prime example is the banning of merely holding a certain reasonably popular plant (i.e. cannabis, the scientific term for marijuana) in your hand, because merely suggestive science at best and obvious junk science otherwise (as logically proven in Stress Health’s introductory essay to the Respect Cannabis campaign) determines ultimate harm from that mere possession (meanwhile, millions of people have been adversely — including horribly — affected by this terrible and seriously-taxpayer-expensive prohibition spanning several decades that fails to even create a “drug free” prison system and nonetheless produce even the tiniest shred of conclusive evidence proving societal benefit, factually speaking).
To prevent law abuse (e.g. discriminatory laws), liberty must be unalienable by default without exception — a necessity that has been factually ignored due to continuing pre-American conservatism spanning the political spectrum negating that truly progressive unalienable right to liberty (defined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence against law abuse over two hundred years ago, and should be lawfully enforceable by constitutional amendment nine — i.e. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). Otherwise, the necessary public backlash against law abuse, especially against those laws enforced with insufficient public awareness (due to lacking mainstream media highlighting), is too slow to materialize and prevent the consequently widespread suffering (and the consequently widespread rippling of unhealthy stress that logically further ripples all throughout our communities — perhaps ad infinitum). Without exception serves to prevent the “slippery slope” problem — if society can oppose the unalienable right to liberty once “for the children”, why not twice? If twice, why not three times? And so on. This necessarily means the burden of proof logically rests upon the shoulders of those people seeking to pass liberty-infringing laws, so ‘there outta be a law against that’, ‘regulations are the only sensible approach against abuse’, and ‘abuse justifies banning use’ types take humanly powerful notice.
The benefit of an unalienable right to liberty (brilliantly concisely defined by certainty to mean the ability to do what you want limited only by the right itself) is maximum societal flexibility necessary for the same reason an athlete needs to remain loose and flexible — to best adapt to reality’s dynamic quality. Admittedly by no means a panacea, but that right healthily logically forces society to continuously objectively define harm to maximal extent to determine when ‘use’ is automatically ‘abuse’ — i.e. when ‘use’ is automatically rights-infringing, so justifiably illegal (e.g. murder). That force also naturally encourages optimally focused scientific research (necessarily including healthy funding) maximizing humanity’s understanding of stress itself (and if Reality Waveform Theory remains valid, that understanding leads to optimal technological advancement).
As you can clearly read, logically speaking, society is on the devastatingly wrong path with no sign of correction (“We the people” are effectively strangling ourselves with an increasingly unhealthily rigid, inconsistent-so-discredited, and massively unwieldy rule-of-law shaped largely by selfish interests, while choking on the propaganda expressed by popular mainstream influences deceptively stating this societal path is the only sane and civilized one). Unhealthy stress against an individual logically increases the risk of that individual’s death, and it makes perfect sense to conclude that unhealthy stress against an individual species logically increases the risk of that species’ extinction.
Leave a Reply