Pamplona Bull Runs Reveal Dynamics of Crowds in Danger
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
This particular summer preceded universal access to the internet by many summers, so it turned out that our information was a little off, and we got to Pamplona a full day early. But there was a huge festival and we just joined the San Fermin crowd.
And ... one of the scariest experiences of my life was being in the middle of _thousands_ of revelers, sandwiched like sardines trying to move through the rather narrow streets of Pamplona. The pressure from six different people pushing into me made it hard to breathe, and on several occasions I was lifted off my feet and thought my life would soon end. The shop windows shattering was a hopeful sound, because it represented some pressure being released.
Looking back, I think that experience made me decide not to run with the bulls the next day, and as an old fogey I'm glad I made that choice. I was unaware at the time that my grandfather had run with the bulls in the 50s or I surely would have put my life on the line again.
But as importantly the "danger" is manufactured: everyone can choose not to take part except the bulls. So they are all behaving the way they do due to exhilaration, not as a consequence of danger.
Unless a bull gets lucky and disembowels one of the wretches.
What a ridiculous, violent, stupid, and unnecessary thing to do: get chased by terrified and antagonized bulls for fun, only to kill them for trying to protect themselves and escape.
You may object to either step of the process, but let's not pretend that the bulls are being punished.
Factory farms are objectively the largest producers of suffering this planet has ever seen [1, 2], and most people consume the meat they produce for pleasure as opposed to necessity.
My argument is descriptive while yours is merely insistent.
History belongs to those with children. The bike riding vegan city living set would surprise me if they have one full child per four adults.
So the “in today’s society” argument doesn’t work because it is evident that grandfathering is good in other cases.
Therefore grandfathering itself can’t be the problem.
If you substitute X with anything, the conclusion “This is evidence that X is only permitted because of grandfathering” holds up.
If you substitute X with some things, the conclusion “This is evidence that X is bad” holds up sometimes and not others.
Therefore, we must conclude that the X’s badness comes from elsewhere, not from present society objecting to a proposal for X.
Essentially, the bull run is bad for reasons that arise from animal cruelty not for reasons that arise from society’s refusal of permitting bull runs today.
I object to the argument, not the conclusion.
In fact, there are many things that violate present morality which are nonetheless right.
Such as?
Most people I know consider it moral to supervise kids in new or dangerous situations.
Parenting from my experience is many shades of grey rather than “right” vs. “wrong”.
When I was 12 I was riding public transport one hour to school and back. My brother was 7. I was there as backup for him but he could do it by himself. And if he got lost, he’d have found his way home by asking local shops for instructions.
My parents would have been “neglectful” by this metric but both he and I loved this freedom. We were both loved and cared for and were top students. They would have been scared if he got lost but it wouldn’t be grounds for revocation of freedom.
My parents were right. I am right. This majority of people who want me to chop my kids off at the knees are wrong.
I’m glad they were the right parents for you.
I’m a parent too, and I wouldn’t be ready to call a parent right or wrong based on being on either side of those situations.
Every child is different. There are certainly some that thrive with more freedom and others that need more structure and direct participation.
Also, every time and region is different. I’d hope people parent differently in high crime areas vs. low crime areas. And pedestrian friendly / public transportation friendly areas vs. not.
I agree that “dangerous” is a subjective metric, and that’s why morally good parenting feels to me more like a spectrum than an absolute.
It also teaches you that what people call psychopathic is mostly just a difference in values.
Plenty of people find it enjoyable/heroic/interesting, so to not include those people within modern society is strange.
Are they truly modern?
"Culture" has this double definition of, on one side, "customs", and in the other as basically a synonym for "art". With extra points for "art" being this abstract thing nobody knows what exactly is, but everybody agrees that -whatever it is- it's "good".
So in Spain there is this national sport in which you take something, no matter how horrible, try to include it in the definition of "culture" and... since "culture is good" -> "thing is good".
Bulls? Yes, I hear you, you are making great logical arguments but... they are "culture" (purposely being ambiguous about whether you refer to "traditional Spanish custom" or "form of art"). And that's it, that's the end of the argument: Bulls == culture == good. Whatever you say, the answer will be "culture". And you are not going to argue culture is bad, are you?
And it's not only bulls. You can use it with whatever you want to support, and somehow in Spain it works quite well!
This is where it falls apart imo. Of course some aspects of various cultures are bad.
They may have relied on "traditional custom" to get here. But they are using "art" when asking "Are you saying culture is bad?". Forget logic, any complaint to bulls is now obviously coming from uneducated idiots. Any "cultured" person will surely agree that culture is good and ergo bulls are good.
What I'm saying is that, at least in Spain, it's common practice to overextend ANY meaning of "culture" to then use the "art" meaning as a joker card in any argument. It's used in bar conversation, and it's used in the Parliament.
All those traditions were created with a purpose: Release social pressure and to signal potential desirable partners with the right skill set for the job. A non trivial issue in our societies. When everybody is a farmer, proving that you can manage bulls moves you up in the social ladder.
But San Fermin is not about bulls, is mostly about booze. Olympic pools of booze melting your social barriers and helping you to mix with the people.
For tourists is about commiting faux pass with less social impact. Nobody will tell your grandma that you never seen a single bull and ended the night snoring in a street corner covered in vomit and with a broken bottle in your hands (Or with luck, wake-up next to a stranger in a much more pleasant way).
And because they made lots of new friends, because being "partners in crime" always make people feel closer.
The sweet money from tourism is a nice bonus, of course, but the social aspects would worth it even without it.
Many athletes in dangerous sports come from lower class backgrounds where it might be seen as the only ticket out of poverty.
I don’t think it’s enough to convert a pacifist into an MMA fighter, but its certainly not the same equation for kids growing up at different income levels.
Not. I'm not joking. It's something you have to see to believe it :-)
Proof me wrong.
One day they’ll switch to a Boston Dynamics Safety Bull and put up a museum of shame memorializing the historical approach, and the tourists will come to see that.