Category: Society and Philosophy

Health Hacker Australia > Articles > Society and Philosophy
Rethinking Punishment: A Call for Empathy in a Desperate World

Rethinking Punishment: A Call for Empathy in a Desperate World

Posted on by Nathan

Introduction

In today’s society, it is all too common to write off individuals who commit crimes or behave erratically as inherently bad people deserving of punishment. This perspective, however, often overlooks the complex realities that drive these actions. In many cases, these are individuals struggling with mental health issues or facing desperate circumstances.

The Desperation Behind the Crime

The cost of living continues to soar, and as big corporations tighten their reins, the support for people slipping through the cracks is dwindling. For many, desperation becomes the driving force behind their actions, not an inherent desire to do wrong.

The Arbitrary Application of Laws

Adding to this problem is the arbitrary and often discriminatory application of laws, which places additional obstacles in the path of already marginalized individuals. This approach not only fails to address the root causes of criminal behavior but also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and crime.

The Harm of Authoritarian Approaches

A hard-line, punitive approach to crime and erratic behavior often does more harm than good. It stigmatizes individuals, making reintegration into society more challenging, and often ignores the underlying issues that led to the behavior in the first place, such as mental health problems or socioeconomic struggles.

The Need for Empathy and Support

Rather than defaulting to punishment as the solution, we must exercise more empathy towards each other. This means advocating for mental health services, affordable housing, and job training programs that address the root causes of desperate actions, rather than simply penalizing the actions themselves.

A Path to Change: Shifting Our Approach to Judging Others

Self-Reflection and Empathy

The first step towards change begins with self-reflection. We must all make a conscious effort to empathize with others and consider the circumstances that may have led them to their current situation. Before passing judgment, we should ask ourselves: “What would I have done in their shoes? Could I have ended up in a similar situation under different circumstances?”

Understanding Mental Health and Neurodivergence

Mental health challenges and neurodivergence further complicate the picture. Neurodivergent individuals, such as those with autism, ADHD, or other neurological differences, often experience the world in unique ways. Their behavior, which might seem unusual or challenging to neurotypical individuals, is often misinterpreted, leading to unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding.

Challenging Cancel Culture

In today’s world of ‘cancel culture,’ where public shaming can occur at the drop of a hat, we must be especially cautious. The rush to condemn someone based on limited information, often without considering their mental health or neurodivergence, is a dangerous trend. We must prioritize understanding and compassion over immediate judgment and cancellation.

Advocacy and Education

To foster a more empathetic society, we must advocate for comprehensive mental health education. This includes pushing for curricula in schools that teach children about mental health and neurodivergence from a young age, as well as community education programs for adults.

Supporting Policy Change

On a broader scale, we must support policies that prioritize mental health services and social support systems over punitive measures. This includes voting for representatives who understand and advocate for these issues, and actively engaging in discussions that challenge the status quo of our criminal justice system.

The Armchair Judge: The Harm of Judging from Afar

The Ease of Remote Judgement

In the age of social media and instant news, it has become all too easy to become an “armchair judge.” From the comfort of our homes, we form opinions and pass judgments on individuals and situations we know little about. This distant form of judgment lacks the nuance and understanding that comes from direct experience, and it often leads to the vilification and dismissal of people who are already struggling.

The Consequences of Vilification

When we vilify others from our lounge chairs, we contribute to a culture that values punishment over rehabilitation and isolation over community support. This type of judgment can have real-world consequences, influencing public opinion and policy in ways that further marginalize and harm those who are doing it tough.

Shifting the Discourse

To break this cycle, we need a fundamental shift in our social discourse. Instead of immediately resorting to vilification and dismissal, we should strive to approach each situation with empathy, understanding, and a genuine desire to help. This means listening more than we speak, seeking to understand the full context of a person’s actions, and advocating for solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms.

The Power of Support

When we choose to support rather than judge, we help to create a society where people are no longer forced into desperate situations. By providing access to mental health services, affordable housing, education, and job opportunities, we can offer paths towards stability and well-being that don’t involve punitive measures.

Conclusion

The armchair judge may be a convenient role to slip into, but it is a harmful one. As members of a shared society, we have the power to change the narrative. By shifting our discourse from one of vilification to one of empathy and support, we can help to build a world that uplifts those who are struggling, rather than pushing them further into desperation.

The Costly Failure of Lockdowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Mortality

The Costly Failure of Lockdowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Mortality

Posted on by Nathan

Abstract:

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments worldwide to implement various measures, including lockdowns, to mitigate the spread of the virus. This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the Institute of Economic Affairs, London, to assess the impact of lockdowns and other COVID-19 restrictions on mortality rates. The analysis is based on empirical evidence from 22 studies encompassing actual measured mortality data, rather than relying on epidemiological modeling. The results demonstrate that lockdowns had a negligible effect on COVID-19 mortality, while imposing significant economic, social, and political costs. The findings emphasize the importance of voluntary behavior changes, such as social distancing, in mitigating the pandemic. This paper calls for a reconsideration of the effectiveness of lockdowns as a primary strategy in controlling future pandemics.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the implementation of strict measures, including lockdowns, to curb the spread of the virus. However, the efficacy and impact of these measures remain subjects of debate. This paper aims to critically analyze the mortality outcomes associated with lockdowns, social distancing measures, and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical studies.

Methodology

A systematic search and screening procedure were employed to identify relevant studies. Out of 19,646 studies initially identified, 32 studies qualified for further analysis. Of these, 22 studies provided measured mortality data and were suitable for meta-analysis. The analysis focused on comparing the mortality rates during periods of lockdown and stringent NPIs with less strict policies, such as those observed in Sweden.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed that the average lockdowns in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 3.2%. This translated into approximately 6,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 in the United States. Shelter-in-place orders were relatively ineffective, reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.0%, resulting in approximately 4,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 3,000 in the United States. Specific NPIs implemented in the spring of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by 10.7%, significantly less than estimates derived from epidemiological modeling. This amounted to approximately 23,000 avoided deaths in Europe and 16,000 in the United States.

Discussion

The findings challenge the initial predictions made by modeling exercises, such as those from the Imperial College of London, which estimated millions of lives saved through lockdowns. In comparison to annual flu deaths, the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns appears disproportionately low. The analysis suggests that voluntary changes in behavior, such as social distancing, played a crucial role in mitigating the pandemic. Moreover, the study highlights the substantial economic, social, and political costs associated with lockdowns, including stunted economic growth, increased public debt, rising inequality, damage to children’s education and health, reduced health-related quality of life, increased crime rates, threats to democracy, loss of freedom, and damage to mental health.

Conclusion

Based on the comprehensive evaluation of empirical research, this study concludes that lockdowns were a failed promise. While having negligible health effects on COVID-19 mortality, they imposed disastrous economic, social, and political costs on society. The findings underscore the need to reconsider the effectiveness of lockdowns as a primary strategy for controlling future pandemics. Future pandemic response strategies should focus on voluntary behavior changes, tailored NPIs, and a balanced approach that considers the collateral effects on society.

References:

  • Campbell, J. (2023, June 5). Lockdowns were a costly failure. Retrieved from https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-l…
  • Institute of Economic Affairs. (2022, January). Did lockdowns, Covid restrictions, social distancing measures etc. effect COVID-19 mortality, based on empirical evidence. Retrieved from https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/fil…
  • NHS Digital. (n.d.). Mental health. Retrieved from https://digital.nhs.uk/services/organ…

Keywords: COVID-19, lockdowns, mortality, non-pharmaceutical interventions, systematic

The Harmful Effects of Taking Offense to Language Used by Neurodivergent People

The Harmful Effects of Taking Offense to Language Used by Neurodivergent People

Posted on by Nathan

Background:

For individuals who are neurodivergent, accessing government services and organisations can be a daunting and frustrating experience. This is due to a variety of factors, including long wait times, complex systems, and a lack of understanding and support for neurodivergent individuals.

When trying to access services and organisations, it is not uncommon for individuals to experience long wait times on the phone, which can lead to frustration and difficulty communicating effectively.

In some cases, this frustration can manifest as the use of language that is considered offensive or inappropriate by service providers. However, it is important to recognise that this language is often a symptom of the difficulties and challenges that neurodivergent individuals face when trying to access support and services.

Harmful Effects of Taking Offense to Language Used by Neurodivergent People:

Taking offense to language used by neurodivergent people can be particularly harmful. Many neurodivergent people may struggle to understand social norms around language, leading to their use of language that may be deemed inappropriate or offensive. However, this language is not meant to be offensive and is often used as a coping mechanism or to express emotions. When organisations take offense to this language, it can lead to further isolation and distress for the neurodivergent person.

Furthermore, the use of language deemed offensive, particularly variations of the word ‘fuck’ as used extensively in Australian culture, can often be used as a form of self-expression and a way to connect with others. When organisations take offense to this language, it can lead to a breakdown in communication and a lack of trust between the neurodivergent person and the organisation.

Discrimination:

Unfortunately, the use of language that is considered offensive can often lead to discrimination and a denial of access to services. Service providers may refuse to continue the conversation or hang up on the individual, effectively denying them the support and assistance that they desperately need.

This discrimination is not only unjust, but it is also a violation of the individual’s human rights. All individuals, regardless of their neurodivergent status, have the right to access government services and organisations without fear of discrimination or retaliation.

The Disabilities Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) is a federal law in Australia that aims to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities, including neurodivergent individuals, and to promote their full and equal participation in all aspects of life.

The DDA protects people with disabilities from discrimination in many areas, including employment, education, access to goods and services, and accommodation. With regard to the use of language, the DDA recognises that certain language and behavior can be discriminatory and harmful to people with disabilities, including neurodivergent individuals, and prohibits such behavior.

Under the DDA, individuals with disabilities have the right to access services and to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their communication style or the language they use. Therefore, organisations and service providers must ensure that their policies and practices do not discriminate against individuals with disabilities, including those who may use language that others deem offensive.

Conclusion:

Organisations need to take steps to understand the language used by neurodivergent people and not take offense to it.

The harm that can be caused by taking offense to language used by neurodivergent people is significant and can lead to further discrimination when accessing services. It is crucial for organisations to create a safe and welcoming environment for neurodivergent people to access the services they need without fear of being discriminated against based on their language use.

References:

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Autism in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/autism-australia/latest-release#key-findings

Crompton, A. (2018). Language, identity and autism: A sociolinguistic study. Routledge.

National Disability Insurance Agency. (2021). Supporting access for people with disability during COVID-19. Retrieved from https://www.ndis.gov.au/coronavirus/supporting-access-people-disability-during-covid-19

Schulze, C. (2019). The language of autism: Why we need to use words carefully. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/neurodivergent-thinking/201904/the-language-autism-why-we-need-use-words-carefully

Emotional thinking and conflicting opinions

Posted on by Nathan 
Opinion

It seems apparent that there are essentially two ways to think, or reason if you prefer. The pragmatic, unemotional, and more objective process, and the emotionally driven, subjective and often bias process. This also seems to be something that is leveraged by certain actors throughout society.

One could postulate that people are being encouraged to think more emotionally in place of more pragmatic reasoning to perpetuate an advantageous environment to be leveraged. There doesn’t have to be some big conspiracy, it can be no more than a common preference selected by powerful people to market to consumers, and keep those quarterly profits at record growth every month.

Notwithstanding the immense benefits of a captialist market, a free and open market that anyone can be a part of and build wealth; it seems clear that it has it’s issues. Namely that the human race, once called Homo Erectus, is now a product of the market, not so much a consumer. We have shifted focus so much that we are now a new species, Homo Economicus. Yes, it’s an actual thing!

As we digress we take a look at the core ways of reasoning and some of the factors at play.

Emotional reasoning

Being almost entirely subjective, and often very biased, and for good reason; emotional thinking is driven by emotional needs. The need to avoid offence, seen as rude etc, are amongst the main reasons people use this approach to reasoning.

While emotional thinking is valuable and useful, it must be kept in check and measured against the pragmatic postulations. It is imperative for the individual to be discerning in choosing which reasoning to apply in any given situation. Remember, no matter how you or anyone feels about it, fact is fact.

Deductive vs pragmatic reasoning

Made famous by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, deductive reasoning is a process of gathering evidence, past events leading to, and forming a foregone conclusion. These conclusions are typically considered immutable, and should not change or be questioned.

Pragmatic reasoning is not too dissimilar in that we use the above process, but we extend it to factor in context, external influences, and any other information that may have causation to the subject. Also, very importantly, the conclusion reached is transient. We take it as our best educated guess that can and should be challenged, especially as new information comes to light.

Holding conflicting opinions

If one can acknowledge the subjective experience and emotional influence in reaching conclusions, then one might find oneself holding multiple differing opinions based on differing requirements or scenarios.

Let us consider what I’m sure most would agree to be the most extreme of situations a human being can find oneself in, a passing of life.

Let us consider this using the above methods of reasoning:

Deductively and emotionally, we might say we know this person and care for them, or we suppose we are someone that does.

This triggers an emotion, often a slew of them; sadness, anger, disappointment, depression, grief etc. Depending on the person and the situation, one may act on the emotion and decide to take retribution.

However, the pragmatic thinker kicks in and we decide not to take retribution because of the concequences to us.

Here we see both ways of reasoning working together in balance. It serves us to think emotionally so that we can express empathy and console our loved ones through the grief. We act on emotional thinking here because it’s advantageous to us and the people we care about.

However, let’s suppose we don’t know the person that has passed. Perhaps we have a decision to make that impacts many. If we were to act on our emotions, is that useful? Do we have a bias here that may restrict us from considering the needs of others?

Self depricating justification of vilification – Opinion

Posted on by Nathan

Self deprecating justification of vilification is the excusing of toxic and even abusive behaviour towards people by way of trying to make out the other person has done something so egregious that it deserves being vilified and castrated in public.

It seems to stem from tribalism, which makes sense in regards to supporting your tribe, and protecting against neighbouring tribes who may want to come and damaged or pilfer your crops, however it’s perpetuated in modern Society through sport and fanaticism, even in TV shows and celebrities.

Seems so many have this foregone conclusion they have formed of the people or things that they side with or feel attached to and if you dare threaten that at all it’s met with huge amounts of defence and even hostility.

We see these labels such as karens being thrown around and it’s a very simple way for people to immediately validate and qualify to each other that it’s ok to engage in this toxic and harmful behaviour towards this person. We even see situations where men are standing over and using extremely aggressive violent language towards females in a setting where this person has been called a Karen being called heros. Traditionally we would say that that was a bit out of line however noble the cause. After all, two wrongs don’t make a right! This behaviour is no better than the original behaviour that was perceived as justifying this vilification.

We need to stop following shallow things. Stop following people. What we need to do is shift focus to ideas and outcomes.