Alternative(s) and or solution(s) ?

In my last I argued that 'rights' in general and FoS in particular, are subjective culturally (group) based aspirations. I also argued that these groups were statistically predictable (within an accepted error margin) where as the individual isn't.

Individuals they have the innate capacity to accept virtually any solution, Where as a Group must either be single focused (all else is subordinate or suborned to that single goal) or subjected to so many accommodations that the goals are so vague and ethereal as to be open for manipulation or manipulative self serving interpretation. Arguably this is an unwanted artefact.

It is a truism of life that for every yin there is a yang, “there is no such a thing as a free lunch”, more specifically for every “solution” has consequences. The skill or wisdom (the benefit of all) is to think beyond the momentary goal to the consequences and chose the option that best mitigates the bad consequences.

Nature in one sense is over time very efficient, in that attributes that have no use in survival in either the individual species and all species are eliminated. One only needs to consider the Koala. It has the brain the size of a walnut virtually no cerebrum or frontal cortex (where we make decisions), it doesn't need one. Its survival attributes are hard wired and is perfectly suited to survive in the niche it evolved for.

We on the other hand evolved with both, mind you both have their limitations. Investigating these limits is an interesting field of human research. This research has shown that an average human has the capacity for about 150 real relationships (in varying degrees) .

(the average on the social media like Facebook is somewhere between 25 and forty). Imagine trying to keep up to date with 150 people in any meaningful way? How many of us are still in intimate contact with good neighbours 10 years after? Once a year Christmas cards, facebook? Are these real contacts/relationships? Even extended families only work works well in limited geography.

Interestingly enough this number is well represented in nature too.

A road less travelled in this line of thinking is how this tendency towards 'myopic focus' and its consequences affects us as a community and or in the worst case scenario, species survival. What isn't generally understood or even considered are what these limitations say about the human condition.

Perhaps the most pernicious consequence of “unnatural groupings*”(UG) is we tend to abrogate our responsibility to act and make decisions wisely.

UG(s) are exclusively artificial to benefit a selected minority. They include Governments, to P&Cs and they tend to be ideologically/power driven.

At this point I would mention that only humans have the notion of responsibility, beyond that of the potential breeding group.

I wonder given evolution's efficiency what are the links between the above facts? And what they might represent by way of more appropriate alternatives (solutions) to our problems.

What do you reckon?

Freedom of Speech right or aspiration

“Individuals I like it's people I'm not so sure about” _{examinator ant}

Huh? You say. “Isn't that an oxymoron?”

Not really, have you ever wondered why 'good people' ( otherwise peaceable individuals) do/commit such horrendous crimes as part of a group ?

I'm reasonably sure that everyone is at some level aware of such behavioural issues as.

Nuremberg Defence.

Interrogation and commanded torture experiment.

Prisoner and Guard experiment

Lynch mob syndrome

Copenhagen syndrome

or more prosaically why sensible youth go 'stupid' in a group.

While all the above are all different and as such are often explained by different conclusions. However, they do interestingly enough, share common more basic factor(s).

Essentially the above linking factor is that we are a social species and the consequences there of.

There is/has been some interesting research into the differences between the actions of individuals and those of people (group). (Perhaps Isaac Asimov SF writer and a top ten Biochemists, was into something with “Psychohistory “ in his famous Foundation series)

This is the basis of my questioning 'The right of Freedom of speech” as an absolute.

Karl Mannheim in 1936 said “Only in a quite limited sense does the individual create out of himself the mode of speech and of thoughts we attribute to him. He speaks the language of the group; he thinks in the manner in which his group thinks.”

Joshua Epstein ( 1999) amplified this with “When I'd had my coffee this morning and went upstairs to get dressed for work , I never considered being a nudist for the day..... when joining my colleagues for lunch I never consider eating my salad barehanded; without a thought, I use(d) a fork.”

Epstein's work has successfully linked physics theories and mass behaviour.

In essence we as a mass are driven/ bound by community mores. Which are statistically predictable.

On this basis alone Absolute Freedom of speech as a right is nonsense. Rather it is a subjective aspiration.

Notwithstanding, a lawyer may argue their case based on existing laws and precedents, case history etc. however, such arguments are subject to changes in the law which are, again, based on community mores. These community mores are subject to change by the mass.

On a practical level we tend not to think too hard about issues other than to blend our behaviour with that of the Mass/community/culture/religion we most identify with.

Consequently we are neither free or able to allow for absolute freedom of speech in a society. Clearly that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't strive as near as practicable to achieve FOS.

Any comments?