Hacker News Reader

> Most society rules have a reason to exist.

Quite some rules are affected by such reasons as "power begets power" - incumbent rulers/influencers tweaking the rulebook to reward incumbent powers and compliant populace and punish contenders.

> Maybe, in the past century a few of that rules have become obsolete. But humanity is excellent at creating rules that makes things good enough to keep going.

> There is nothing that makes a society change its rules like a change on the environment.

From evolutionary perspective, I'd say people make up all sorts of changes, to a large degree at random, according to their own appetite. Then environment does its things, especially but not necessarily with factors not well understood by the societies, and wipes out the societies which can't survive in the new environment.

For example, the USSR has played out the game of "more power to the center, more limitations for the public, more punishments for the dissenters" until it couldn't operate anymore. And increasingly lots of people have seen it coming, some of them decades in advance.

Of course you can say "well but most people have survived and now the society has re-made itself", sure, but the society as in the set of definitive, durable, observable social constructs has ceased to exist.

The period directly before the fall of the Soviet Union was one of liberalization and opening up. If any thing, the history of the Soviet Union was on of decreasing repression (in fits and with some set backs) after Stalin's death. You also have to be really careful of historical predictions. Lots of people make lots of predictions. Most of them are wrong, and most of them aren't remembered.

Liberals cause communism, liberals cause the end of communism—it's just hard to keep these vague political bogeymen straight sometimes.

Liberalization in this context has nothing to do with the current usage in American politics.

Liberalization was blamed both before the Soviet Union was established, and again when it was dissolved. You should be thinking of the former usage of both "liberals" and "liberalization".

> Most society rules have a reason to exist.

Well, it depends how broad your definition of 'rules' is.

I've known people who consider it a 'rule' that when wearing a suit you should not do up the jacket's bottom button.

I can imagine a person who used this expansive definition might see a great many rules as arbitrary; and enjoy a festival where rules could be broken.

> The "everything is going to hell" theory. And, as often happens, without any proof or care to explain.

How about an algorithmically-driven, heavily addicted, Brave-New-World-resembling globalized society?

Why has the concept of 'proof' been lifted so many thousand kilometers off its place as a useful tool in scientific conduct, and placed over common sense?

> We know the rules of society are arbitrary

Author clearly has an underpowered pattern recognition module.

> > We know the rules of society are arbitrary, set up so that the show can be played out to its conclusion.

> This seems wrong to me. Most society rules have a reason to exist.

They do have a reason to exist but that doesn't mean the rules are not arbitrary.

Stop signs for example. They actually indicate that extra caution should be taken at the crossing. Actually stopping is rarely a necessity unless you want to obey the law to the letter. It's an arbitrary rule designed to decrease local accidents.

Flirting at the workplace is another. It's more complex, but it's still an arbitrary rule, one that we might do without, it's all about what specifically we're trying to achieve (less romantic/sexual complications - positive and negative - at the workplace) with this arbitrary rule.

There are less arbitrary rules of course, like not hurting other people, but most rules governing day-to-day life are highly arbitrary, to the point where you live an incredibly boring life unless you're a "criminal" - I don't stop at all stop signs for example, which by definition makes me a criminal. I also use drugs recreationally.

> Festivals are not to for "blow off steam".

Depends on the type of festival. I'd say all of them offer a fresh experience out of the regular day-to-day life (which could be defined as "blowing off steam"). Some might be more "transcendent" than others.

There is a really good reason for stopping fully at a stop sign. If your speed and that of the cross traffic vehicle is matched appropriately, the vehicle will occupy the same position (remain stationary) in your field of view. That can cause you to miss seeing the car. By stopping then looking, the car will appear in motion against a still background making it much more likely to stand out.

Sure, that's a good point, but it also applies to crossings without stop signs. :)

At least where I am (NE US), there are very few intersections that are uncontrolled in all directions.

Bicycles can also be completely blocked by the car pillars due to this effect.