Alcohol.

Lots and lots of people lean heavily on it and think that alcohol is the spice of their life. When, it contributes to so many problems than it’s so-called benefits. We tried, in America anyways, to outright ban alcohol. Problem was that the person who wanted it banned, was too extremist.

Like he didn’t think it all through and think just going for the jugular of the problem is what will work. When, it didn’t and just made people work around it until eventually the ban was dismantled.

So, since then, we’ve been putting up with drunk drivers, drunk disputes, drunk abusers and other issues. I still wish we could just slam our hands down at the desk and demand we sit to discuss in how to properly deal with this issue than people proclaiming that it’s not a problem.

  • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I don’t think we will ever have a society that is truly saved from class warfare. I think that the upper classes will always exist in some form and they will always oppress the vast majority of the population, with varying degrees of brutality. I also think this is the most important issue in our society and must be dealt with. It’s depressing.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      16 hours ago

      In Marx’s own idea the point were class warfare is no more is when our civilization can satisfy any needs of anyone.

      It would be the ultimate goal of communism, perfect equity through infinite automation of all resources.

      Then they would only be art, philosophy, science and social activities.

      Except, as long as there’s limited resources, fighting for it is our nature. To the point of having to much if may be.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Considering how little we actually know, how much we are still figuring out today, how wrong we once were, and most definitely still are on many things, about said nature, the naturalistic argument is IMHO rather weak. The argument silently assumes too many things, at least with our current knowledge - that human beings do actually have an inherent nature, that said nature is uniform enough across the whole species to make that generalization, that said nature is inevitable and can’t be evolved past or rationalized against, that it always was the case and will always be, etc.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Getting consent to creating a life from a unborn child. Every human being was raped into existence by their parents.

    Rent is due in 7 days.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I don’t know if that’s a problem with society so much as it is a problem with reality.

      …or a problem with time and sequences of events.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Everyone has the option to stop their lifes if wish be.

      Most don’t not just from some technicalities but because parents or otherwise we have a biological urge to consent to being alive and make live being.

      The consent is from our nature and only extreme circumstances makes it otherwise.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I have wondered this about certain harmful cultural values. Culture seems to be the “great enabler” when it comes to things we would wish would change about people (think of Japan’s habit of overworking people or Greece’s penchant of old inequality). And the fuel of the flame there is going to take a gamechanger to douse.

  • EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    There’s no problem in society that can’t be fixed. But the problem is there’s too much conclusion without proper understanding

  • SleepyBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I understand the point in OPs post, but I disagree with it based upon evidence we have available to us. I think first and foremost it is important to mention (I dont have the studies linked but it shouldnt be hard to find) that teenage drug use overall is trending downward, with that including underage alcohol use/abuse. If younger generations use it less, the problems caused by alcoholism will be less prevalent as time goes on. Secondly, weve been putting up with drunk drivers for a while but (as our younger generations have been told for about 20 years now) the consequences for drunk or impaired operation of a motor vehicle have become more and more severe. I do believe alcoholism is something that can and will be phased out given enough time. The only thing that is still a mystery is what vice is going to replace it, and whether it is going to be better or worse.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yeah education and prevention were always the best measure against addictions. But when it’s something deeply ingrained in society it takes time to move on. I like to think society is it’s own living thing, evolving much slower.

  • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Crime. There’ll never be a world without it and at some point society will have to realize that there’s an “acceptable level of crime”, beyond which any further measures to reduce it would be unacceptably authoritarian.

    • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Fix poverty and you fix crime. I mean there will always be people with severe mental disorders that make them violent or deadly, but this could also be potentially handled by making complete mental health check ups part of universal healthcare. People who are likely to become violent could be separated from the population and potentially cured.

      I remember the case of a 6 year old girl who was adopted from a situation of severe abuse, violent, sexual, and neglect. She became a violence obsessed psychopath. She kept trying to stick needles in herself along with other self harm behaviors. She attacked her adoptive parents with a knife. After this they locked her in her room at night and put a lock on their bedroom door. She attempted to kill her brother, and tortured and killed animals.

      There is a documentary about her called Child of Rage. Warning - this is extremely disturbing.

      Eventually, as no progress was being made, she went to live with a therapist for intense behavior modification therapy. She was cured without the use of drugs. Now she is a successful RN and author.

      I went way off track here but I wanted to reemphasize that poverty is the source of the vast majority of crime, and even the most broken psychopaths can be cured.

      End poverty, end child abuse, end crime. End capitalism.

      • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Ending poverty would certainly help, but I disagree that crime would be fixed. People commit crimes for many reason that aren’t related to poverty. Envy, hatred, love, sexual desire, religious fanaticism, political extremism etc. Crimes like murder and rape often have motives completely unrelated to financial status. Not all perpetrators have severe mental disorders either.

        In terms of “fixing” people who are violent, I agree in so far that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and helping people. In many but not all cases, that can be achieved. But generally those people commit crimes first before they’re identified. You propose mental health checkups to prevent that in the first place, but many people who are in a bad mental place would not voluntarily go to those. So would you make them mandatory for everyone? That would be quite dystopian, especially with the possibility of being locked up without even having committed a crime. That’s exactly the kind of thing I mean by measures that are unacceptably authoritarian. And even then, people would definitely slip through the cracks.

  • Anissem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    You know that thing, when you’re walking through an isle in a store and each person tries to step aside and so ensues some of the most awkward moments? That.

  • ex_06@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    “Random” events of “evil”. Basically I think we’ll never reach something like 0 murders, 0 rapes, 0 stealing for little greed and so on. Or even 0 addiction (edit: i’m not including addiction to the previous list of crimes, i wanted to add it as another class of issues for we will never reach a true 0)

    We are very very far from the ideal situation tho, there is a looot of margin of improvement

    Like your alcohol thing in the post: ban only makes it worse and still now you (as US, not you OP) have a very weird relationship with alcohol with the thing that minors cannot touch it and people have to drink from a paper bag lol. Let’s say that you are not really trying hard to improve the situation. We’ll never reach 0 alcoholists but society is not in a good shape and alcohol is cheap so ye

    • stinky@redlemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Addiction is often people trying to escape from pain using anything they have available. It’s not evil.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    None. Society is constructed by us, including all of its “issues”. We built it all.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    The limited scope of human attention and the ineptitude it creates in governance is impossible for a mortal being to fix in our finite existence. We will eventually formulate an AGI that can address this primal flaw, but defining who or what is fixing the issue becomes an unsolvable philosophical paradox in the idealized fantasy world of philosophical definition.