Natural Selection of Complacency?

[InfiniteNow]

Many members of society are complacent.

 

Complacency: A feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger, trouble, or controversy.

 

Is it possible that this has evolved for some purpose? Maybe those who were complancent were less likely to be attacked by the hierarchy of the pack, more likely to "slip past" the alpha memebers wrath?

 

What do you think? Why might complacency exist?

[Mercedes Benzene]

Well. Let me tell you. I have always felt a sensation of complacency.

I cannot really say why, but it is something that I have started to identify with... and I am trying to break myself of the "habit".

I think complacency is just another basic human emotion... I am not sure though...

GOOD TOPIC!

[InfiniteNow]

bump

[Lancaster]

The thing is, the average American no longer has to hunt for food, or risk their life to exist. Many things are provided for us. Granted, most of us still must work for a living, but complacency is rampant among spoiled children who will never have to provide for themselves. Maybe the seed for complacency was always there, just waiting for the chance to do nothing.

[CerebralEcstasy]

Maybe the seed for complacency was always there, just waiting for the chance to do nothing.

 

Doesn't that make it non complacent then? If it were just waiting for the chance? :shrug:

[Lancaster]

Maybe it was waiting on a proverbial sofa of complacency. :hihi:

[Zythryn]

Interesting thread!

 

Is it possible that complacency was selected for because those that didn't use energy unnecessarily had an advantage?

 

And as humanity developed argriculture people had more free time. This allowed complacency to spread. As humanity advanced we had more and more free time, yet there was no negative pressure on complacency (unless taken to extremes).

[cwes99_03]

Perhaps we have become complacent because we realize that no matter how hard we fight some things we will never win. How often has mankind thought he could wipe out diseases only to have a new improved nastier one come out of the wood work. Look at malaria, TB, mumps, etc. that were all thought to have been nearly wiped out.

 

Human history has taught some complacency. CebEx understands what I'm talking about.

[Lancaster]

That's true. If we actually cared about every unjust life lost or everywrong doing and deisese, we'd never be happy and could never sleep well at night. Maybe complacancy is neccicary to be sane in the present day.

[InfiniteNow]

It's funny. There seems to exist complacency in terms of posts to this thread. Oh well, maybe it's a dud of a topic. All smoke, no bang. (a little fourth of july humor there).

[Racoon]

Many members of society are complacent.

 

 

 

Is it possible that this has evolved for some purpose? Maybe those who were complancent were less likely to be attacked by the hierarchy of the pack, more likely to "slip past" the alpha memebers wrath?

 

What do you think? Why might complacency exist?

 

Complacent by Mental and not Physical...

 

Mind rules over body. If theres less need to get up and get what you want/need then theres more complacency. Pretty simple actually.

 

Humans are creatures of comfort. If you provide comfort, you/I/we take it.

If you make comfort easy to achieve, then you will see more and more complacency.

 

Of course there are a few driven souls who resist complacency, but thats an exception, and not the Generalization.

:hyper:

[InfiniteNow]

Mind rules over body. If theres less need to get up and get what you want/need then theres more complacency. Pretty simple actually.

I certainly understand the whole "expend least amount of effort for maximum amount of gain" concept, but I am curious. First, how do you support your comment that mind rules over body? As a follower of eastern philosophy, you are clearly aware the two are inseperable and equal in stature... two sides of the same coin and whatnot.

 

Anyway, the point of it is that there is a need to get up and get what we want, yet complacency ensues. Complacency implies a feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger, trouble, or controversy, all three of which would indicate to me a very large need to "get up."

 

Yet so very often, we do not. I am asking why this may have evolved, and also I guess why it continues.

 

 

Cheers. :hyper:

[hallenrm]

good thread,

 

I think it has something to do with natural selection. People who are complacent, mentally, are bound to be eliminated in the struggle for life, if not today may be years later.

 

So, be warned, all those who find it very convenient to be complacent, the fruits of prosperity you are enjoying today are the result of your forefathers who incidentally were not so complacent.

 

Be complacent, and rest assured you will be swiped clean by those who are active :) :)

[TheBigDog]

In the "nature vs nurture" argument I would place complacency firmly in the nurture corner.

 

In a free society like the US where people have the capability of controlling their own fate many people buy into the idea that they actually have no control. Politically I hear things like "one party is exactly like the other, so voting one way of the other makes no difference." Or "all politicians are crooks, so why should I vote for one over another." People are so convinced culturally that they are politically powerless that they concede their power to those who participate in the process. The same goes with a subject like employment. Some parts of society are so convinced that success is stacked against them, that they concede to defeat in the competition of economics and jobs. Education is almost irrelevant in this area. There are exceptionally well educated people who are convinced that nothing is possible, by some rational or another, and as a result they become complacent in their lifestyle. The truth is that there is ample opportunity for people to succeed, to compete, to improve their situation, to control their own destiny. Yet they are so convinced that it is not possible by their role models that they concede themselves as victims of society and do nothing. This is not an issue about race or religion or even financial well being. This attitude is found across all parts of society in varying numbers. Many people who feel so victimized in turn feel that they are either owed something by society, or turn to crime because they feel that it is their only option in a society designed to keep them down. In the case of a free society this is the opposite of what is wanted as it is the creativity and freedom of people to do and discover new things that allows the society to grow and prosper.

 

The opposite extreme is people in a totalitarian regime. These people actually have no political say, so they are in fact living at the mercy of their government. They can be successful for the benefit of the state, but not for their own benefit. These people actually are trapped and limited in opportunity, so just like in a free society, many of them turn to crime or they kick back and behave like victims and accept what the government deals out to them. In the case of a totalitarian regime this is required to keep people at the mercy of the state so the state doesn't lose its control over the people. Under a totalitarian regime it is much more difficult for individuals to find spiritual and personal satisfaction. Yet even in these extremes that are examples of people finding success. Some escape, some rebel, some comply and succeed within the system. But even when everything is so terribly stacked against people, they still have the power within themselves to find paths to freedom and success. The capability of the individual human being is extraordinary and immeasurably vast, and those who understand this refuse failure under any circumstance.

 

Another part of this that I see is the ease of life. There have been many comments on this in this thread. I like to use the example of cartoons. When I was a kid you could see cartoons on Saturday mornings, and for an hour after school. For me, those times that I could set and watch cartoons were special. If I wanted to enjoy them, I had to value them above other things, and I had to learn to make decisions about priority even from a young age. Now I have 8 channels that play cartoons 24 hours per day. My kids can tune them in at any time. I also have Tivo, so they can record what they want to see no matter when it is on, and see it at any time they want. Convenient? Yes, but it also makes the cartoons mean less. My kids don't need to prioritize. I could either play outside OR watch my cartoons. My kids can play outside AND watch their cartoons. As a result they are trained that all things should be so handy. And the simple skill of deciding one thing over another is lost.

 

How does this make them complacent? Because they fail to learn that some things are valuable and you must sacrifice one thing to enjoy another. And enjoyment is not always measured in the moment. Enjoyment is sometimes found years later. Some times in life are hard and sacrifice of certain pleasures is necessary to lay the foundation for the future. Those who do not know how to sacrifice todays pleasure for tomorrows ecstasy are doomed to mediocrity.

 

Another area that causes complacency is the watering down of the meaning of competition. I read about kids sports leagues that don't keep score so nobody can be a loser. And schools that don't publish honor rolls so that nobody feels like a failure. But the fact is everything in life is a competition. You compete for a spouse. You compete for a job, or for a better job, or for a promotion. You compete to afford a good home for yourself. Those who do not compete, or do not know how to compete more often than not fail to win in competitions. When people are taught to not compete, and are taught that competition should be removed they become complacent about the effort needed to excel in life.

 

And it is not about education. A person with no education is at some dis-advantage to a person with a great education. But a person with no education but with great drive and competitive spirit will far exceed the success of a person with a fantastic education but no drive or competitive spirit. If I had my druthers I would make the understanding of how to compete and win the single most important lesson a person can. I personally prefer to hire a driven person over a well educated person, and it is one of the things I always look for in candidates for hire. You will see a very common thought among the complacent that there is no reason to compete, because the game is over before it begins. That thought is poison, and when it becomes embedded in the culture is breeds generations of complacency.

 

Bill

[cwes99_03]

Wow, BD, that's some post.

 

While I don't agree with all of your conclusions I think you are right for a portion of the population.

 

My question is whether it is nurture if society tells you you can't succeed. Or does it become nature if the society actually does make it harder to succeed.

 

I guess the difference is whether it is perceived or whether there is actually a wall/barrier to success.

 

I know that in order for me to get a high paying job in the area of expertise I want, I have to give up gobs of time, money, and life to get into that job (through education and asserting myself I could probably do this.) However what are the consequences. Would I have to give up some part of who I am? Would I devote so much of my time and effort that I would be paying for it for the rest of my life both financially and emotionaly/physicaly? Then is it still having success?

I chose not to go on to get my PhD because there were more important things in life for me to do, primarily develop spiritually and share my knowledge of the Bible with others. This will take a considerable amount of my time as well, but it is better spent in my mind that pursuing a career. Thus I have, I guess, become complacent in my choice of vocation. I am working a job that helps me get out of debt quickly (which I need to do in order to reach out for other spiritual opportunities) without having to compromise my moral standards (while being a professor in physics would probably not require any moral compromise, I could possibly be drawn into the politics of the university which I do not want to do) and living within a community and congregation that I feel very at home with.

I could be earning easily 4 times as much as I do now, but at what cost? Certainly too high of one for me.

[TheBigDog]

My question is whether it is nurture if society tells you you can't succeed. Or does it become nature if the society actually does make it harder to succeed.

 

I guess the difference is whether it is perceived or whether there is actually a wall/barrier to success.

I believe that in the case of society (other people) telling you that you can't succeed that is the very definition of nurture. I look at complacency as being an internal thing. Whatever the barrier, the will of a person to strive to overcome that barrier defines them as complacent or not. And it is not measured in money alone. In your case you have a clear vision of what is important to you. You dedicate your life to that purpose, knowing that you could choose another path that may provide alternate rewards. But in making the choice you are pursuing the rewards that mean the most to you as an individual. It doesn't sound like you are sitting around and lamenting for what could have been, or seeing yourself as a puppet. So while your aim is not primarily financial, I would not classify you as being complacent.

 

Even an impossible purpose that can never be realized can still be pursued for a lifetime. If a person dedicates their life to building an ornithopter for carrying loads of bricks across the Atlantic Ocean they may have chosen an impossible goal, but as long as they continue to pursue that goal they have not become complacent. And while the pursuit may be misguided, it is the pursuit that defines them, not the accomplishment of the final goal. They day they quit and decide that nothing is worth pursuing they become a complacent person.

 

Where things become muddied in the argument is with satisfaction. If a person reaches a point where they are satisfied have they become complacent? I would say no. Being satisfied and believing all effort is fruitless are two different things. If a person had been driven to reach a point of satisfaction, and they relax and enjoy that plateau of success there is nothing wrong with this. If they find themselves in a bind and suddenly their satisfaction is gone, this is where they are measured again. Do they recommit themselves to their purpose, or do they concede that the competition has been lost and accept the situation that is dealt to them?

 

I am the master of my own destiny. As is each of us. It is more difficult for some than for others, but life is not fair.

 

Bill

[cwes99_03]

Well, I think you really have your head on straight here. Two more things:

 

1) If someone is satisfied, only because they believe that there is nothing more they can do (either because society tells them they can't, or society actually makes it impossible for them to do so) is this not the definition of complacency?

 

2) The above question alluded to this question of nature vs. nurture. This is probably the greyest area of nature vs nurture. Nature obviously refers to forces which shape the life of the being in question that are beyond the will of himself or others (i.e. genetics, climate, etc.) Nurture deals with how one responds/interacts with other beings (sentient?) (such as how a parent raises the child to behave via stimulation, teaching, discipline, etc.). Is society as a whole a habitat which could be considered a natural environment(nature), or is it a nurturing being or beings that make choices that affect the subject (nurture)?