How can people be against things that their existence relies upon?

[Thurlor]

Do they not realise that their very existence is contingent upon all past events involving their ancestors?

A few examples (that aren't very controversial);

- Citizens of colonial countries being against colonialism.
- Australian's descended from convicts who claim it was wrong to send convicts to Australia.

There are other examples that I'm sure you can think of but I won't taint this conversation with those.

 

[BurnedOut]

contingent upon all past events involving their ancestors?

What?

Past events' establishments are usually valued when they serve a good deal of utility but I cannot say the same for cultures (such as nonacceptance of gays, caste system, etc) Circumstances force you to foresake your past because it is the...past.

And your very existence depends on the systems established and not the extant buildings, cultures solely. Hardly anybody bothers to break the usual patterns set by the trend of the times.

So when the dissent happens it is not about going after the very roots of your existence but attempting to make a change to accomodate you. Despite the fact that colonials hate their colonialists, they end up having their government and basic bureaucratic systems. They go as far as to mimic some of the lifestyle as well. Eg. If you send any Indian politician to UK, he will be able to naturally grasp the British political system a little better than an American.

 

[Daddy]

If the past and future were buddies, they'd probably be frenemies.

 

[Hadoblado]

Your ancestry predates any conception of morality and is of large enough sample size you can conclude it includes every sin you could imagine. Genocide, rape, incest, slavery, cannibalism, murder... whatever. Your argument is so powerful it literally paints all acts as reasonable.

IIRC you don't like bullies (which is reasonable). Well, you are almost certainly descended from bullies. According to your own reasoning, is it now silly to be against bullying?

 

[scorpiomover]

Do they not realise that their very existence is contingent upon all past events involving their ancestors?

People learn about what they are exposed to.

People who grew up without the internet, can compare life pre-internet to life with the internet, and can see the differences.

People who grew up only with the internet, are not nearly as aware of the effects of the internet, because they don't know anything else. They have nothing to compare to.

OTOH, people who grew up only with the internet, take it for granted and are much more comfortable with adapting to the way life is now.

 

[ummidk]

---

 

[Niclmaki]

Wat. What kind of reasoning is this? Surely just trolling.

 

[àzar]

There’s a lot to unearth in that question. I’m a naturally cynical person. In my observation, people that challenge the things that enabled them to exist as they are today tend to lack any sense of accountability. They don’t ask why. They don’t evolve or grow as people. Rather, they just consume whatever makes them feel good. Consequences be damned. They can always blame somebody else, or the system, or whatever if it doesn’t work out.