Quotes About Society

In the West, the phone had become a drug even more addictive than opioids. In a culture becoming ever more secular, the phone had become a god.

Cultures and national belief systems that maintain their integrity can add to diversity. I'm a strong believer in melting pot societies, but enclaves of distinctiveness are important too. As long as every nation, and every diverse group within every nation, is accepting of others.

You almost had to feel sorry for women trying to make it to the top of the crime world—they had a tougher road. I mean, a woman would have to murder twice as many people in cold blood as a man to get to the top, and much more viciously. It really wasn't fair to these corrupt, soulless, psychopathic women. But, hey, I didn't make the rules.

cell phones were the ultimate distraction, carefully designed and evolved to become as addictive as possible.

In an ideal world, what purpose should a government serve?" asked Craft. Then answering his own question he said, "It should protect its people from internal and external dangers. It should help build infrastructure and help society run smoothly. It should police society so commercial interactions are conducted fairly. And it should help provide citizens what they need to excel, the infrastructure and means. And that's about it.

In 1830, America's farmers comprised seventy-one percent of the workforce. Yet, in modern times, this number had plummeted to less than two percent. Improved automation of farms had impacted a greater percentage of the workforce than autonomous vehicles ever could. Even so, society had readily absorbed the loss of these farming jobs, which had morphed into opportunities in other sectors.

perfected mass-brainwashing techniques early on after extensive experimentation on their populations.

How are you making utopia sound like Hell on Earth?

Presidents could be fickle and arbitrary. Each new one with wildly different visions and priorities. And when all was said and done, they were nothing more than civilians who managed to get donors excited enough to give them money, and then win a popularity contest. They weren't the smartest or best trained that humanity had to offer, and they didn't have the best judgment. The truly brilliant, truly gifted, wanted little to do with politics. Cargill

But now, in the case of human society, with no natural predators to thin the herd, evolution didn't reward those with the most intelligence, but simply those who reproduced the most. The

Politics, noun: [Poly 'many' + tics 'blood-sucking parasites']

If food were free, why work?

To immerse oneself in popular culture for any length of time is to wallow in an almost unbearable shallowness. Was the sum of European endeavour and achievement really meant to culminate in this?

They] may have for instance taken the view of Edmund Burke, who in the 18th century made the central conservative insight; that a culture and a society are not things run for the convenience of the people who happen to be here right now, but is a deep pact between the dead, the living, and those yet to be born.

If the burden of working for little reward in an isolating society stripped of any overriding purpose can be recognised to have an effect on individuals, how could it not also be said to have an effect on society as a whole? Or to put it the other way around, if enough people in a society are suffering from a form of exhaustion, might it not be that the society they are living in has become exhausted?

Perhaps one reason why people – especially neo-Marxists – are coy about the precise comparisons they are making is that the comparisons they would cite (Venezuela, Cuba, Russia) would reveal the deeper underbelly of their ideology and the true reasons for the negative accounting of the West. But most often the question 'Compared to what?' will elicit only the fact that the utopia with which our society is being compared has not yet come about.

Second-wave feminist rhetoric placed blame for the female condition entirely on men, or specifically on "patriarchy" . . . The exclusive focus of feminism was on an external social mechanism that had to be smashed or reformed. It failed to take into account women's intricate connection with nature – that is, with procreation.' Or why, 'in this era of the career woman, there has been a denigration, or devaluing of the role of motherhood.

Such visible failure and a sense of lost moorings can be – for the individual as for society – not only a cause for concern but an exhausting emotional process. Where once there was an overriding explanation (however many troubles that brought), now there is only an overriding uncertainty and question. And we cannot unlearn our knowledge.

It is wholly unsurprising that studies show an increase in anxiety, depression and mental illness in young people today. Rather than being a demonstration of 'snowflake'-ism it is a wholly understandable reaction to a world whose complexities have squared in their lifetimes. A perfectly reasonable response to a society propelled by tools that can provide endless problems but no answers.

Any parent may notice the differences between their sons and daughters, but the culture tells them that there are none or that those that are there are purely 'performative' issues.

If you do not respect my past, then why should I respect yours? If you do not respect my culture, then why should I respect yours? If you do not respect my forebears, then why should I respect yours? And if you do not like what my society has produced, then why should I agree to your having a place in it?

Even if you agreed that longevity is a curse for a society, there are many things you might do before deciding to import the next generation from another continent.

Is a fat white person equal to a skinny person of colour? Or are there different scales of oppression which everyone should know even if no one has explained the rules because the rules are made not by rational people but by mob stampedes.

Nathan Verhelst,