Comment by maxander | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxander | Hacker News Reader

A line I particularly liked (from the second segment):

> "I think it is this new atmosphere of fear and that it won't change until we, as a public, learn to perform a new kind of alchemy and recognize fear when it is being presented. We need to learn to eat fear, to convert it into an energy that can be used to better a society rather than to terrorize and weaken it."

A huge percentage of the modern news media is fear-based. In the last U.S. presidential election, both candidates were running on largely fear-based platforms (fear of Mexicans on one end, fear of Trump on the other.) Even most political movements emphasize the terrible thing they're afraid of or angry about instead of actual changes that could be made to fix things. This can't be how things keep working.

I'm optimistic that we'll learn this "alchemy," though, for the simple reason that the onslaught of media-terror has become so absurdly intense that people can't help but become jaded. The first time you hear about a murder in your area, it's terrifying; the second time, a bit more expected; what about the tenth? The hundreth? We're being asked to believe in so many terrible things at once that the human mind is just going to give up at some point.

As long as we can lose fear without also losing concern, we'll be alright.

Overdosing on fear and becoming numb to it is a feature, not a bug. It's a specific propaganda technique used by Vladimir Putin to create so much chaos and churn that people don't know what is true, and begin to tune out or just become cynical and blame "all sides" for the problem (you did it in your post, there is a sort of social pressure right now to create equivalence on these things).

It's a perfect technique in the age of too much information. Authoritarian regimes of the 20th century were about restricting information - those of the 21st are about creating so much noise that finding truth begins to feel meaningless.

The Russian "firehouse of falsehood" propaganda model:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE10...

That's why I loved London's reaction to the 2005: "That's all you got?? Not afraid, go away" (I was living there at the time).

Also relevant and always worth it: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear, 3 part BBC documentary by Alan Curtis.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTg4qnyUGxg

Krista Tippett (from the "On Being" podcast) talks about this as one of the most important social tasks at the moment - to help calm fears of those around us so that as a society we're less fearful of each other, and more open to each other. I found it a fascinating call-to-action, as the rise of fear is something I feel like I've been noticing.

Having said that, I'm only 30, so don't know if the local pattern of rising fear is part of a larger story of less fear (compared to cold war days, for example).

>Having said that, I'm only 30, so don't know if the local pattern of rising fear is part of a larger story of less fear (compared to cold war days, for example).

There has definitely been a spike in fear-culture post 9/11.

I am a bit over 40. From how I remember the cold war, most people didn't realise just how bad it was. I mean, risk of happening multiplied by impact.

I remember it being there in the background but most people knew they couldn't address it themselves, so just kept on as though the world wasn't going to end. Who would be so crazy?

I'm very much fear-based, especially re political matters - I fear the rising levels of carbon dioxide; and even more, the death of the oceans from everything we pour into it (including what hurricanes drag into it.) There's plenty to fear.

It's fearing something that causes far fewer deaths than asthma so much you'll throw away the rights that underpin democracy, that's what's crazy; not fear. We won't even ban artificial fragrances, re asthma, much less toss away all privacy.

That's what the grandparent hinted at:

> As long as we can lose fear without also losing concern, we'll be alright.

I read this as fear being the emotional reaction to a threat, and concern being the rational reaction. You can say "this is a problem, what can I/we/government do to fix it?" without also having to say "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE", but it needs to be learned. (Which reminds me that the Enchiridion of Epictetus is still on my reading list.)

If you aren't emotional about the environment, and fear isn't that emotion, that's you. The general reaction to the (utterly toothless) Paris Accord was indeed - general concern allieviated by rather meaningless blather. My reaction was increased fear for our future since nothing concrete was agreed; no penalties adhered to breaking the agreement. (Whereas trade consequences could have been tied to bad behavior.)

We like to think others are acting from fear whereas we are merely concerned, other married couples argue but we "discuss", etc. The old joke about this comes from Bertrand Russell and went something like this: "I love children, you are a scout leader, they are a pederast."

I wish I could share your optimism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com