Perhaps one might leave it at the implication of the poverty of the so-named “fact-value” distinction and therefore of the incapacity of science to know itself, or possibly at the suggestion that, being near the 98th anniversary of Max Weber’s Address “Politics as a Vocation”, we can profit from a re-reading of that.

Or, in the context of “I never loved you”, bemuse ourselves with the thought that the same God who said “be fruitful and multiply” may as well one day say “I never loved you”? Oy.

That’s not a nice thought, as the modern nice-saying goes. But then it’s always blech with the modern way of “nice” saying.

I took that stuff seriously. Ehrlich was a Stanford professor and the Malthusian math always looks good.

We’ve gotten this far because clever, resourceful humans beat the equations, not becuase the equations were wrong.

Without Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolutioin, millions, if not a billion, of people would have died.

I suppose their Gaia mother didn’t tell them about the other problem, underpopulation.

The Whole Earth Catalog recommended some Mormon sources for buying items in bulk for surviving a collapse.

On that topic, Aquaponics might be an interesting advance in self sustainable food production.

Anyone who actually believes in something like the Apocalypse, or the Zombie Apocalypse, or something like the Rapture, might prepare just as zealously, for their own reasons. Those beliefs tended to be ostracized as extreme or non mainstream. Now that, online, people are Doomsdaying like I’ve never seen them do before, certain things are getting mainstream after all.

Bookworm, another conversion of the heart/mind such as Neo Neo here, often mentions her agnostic personal belief, coupled with her Jewish heritage from parents in WWII.

She mentions how she respects the Mormon missionaries for their attitude or well kept appearance. I also had some funny riffs on stories talking to Christian missionaries, of various denominations.

“… ceasing to be ‘in love’ need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense- love as distinct from ‘being in love’- is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other: as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be ‘in love’ with someone else. Being ‘in love’ first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.”

1) The English word “love” is overloaded. Which kind of love are we talking about? Eros, Phileo or Agape? (Most Christian philosophy focuses on three, but C.S. Lewis advocated for four kinds of love.) They had erotic love for the other person, but never the unconditional, sacrificial, agape, love that a married couple should strive for. To strive for agape takes commitment and self sacrifice. Shallow, immature adults cannot do that.

2) On the other hand, the person could have the kind of abnormal psychology where what they see and feel at this moment is their only reality and everything in their past is ignored or edited to fit this reality. I don’t know if these are psychopaths or persons with borderline personality disorder or what the official diagnosis is, but I have dealt with a few of them. You can show them objective proof from the past that contradicts their current state regarding a relationship or themselves (or whatever it is they now find objectionable) and ask them what made them happy or content then. They will invariable respond that they were not happy at that moment, they were probably faking it, but it was not true. To them current conditions are fact and evidence of past is subjective or even false.

A good book on depressions is Anne Sheffield’s “Depression Fallout” which, if I recall correctly, had a chapter on this topic alone.

Jimmy Dell: I think you’ll find that if what you’ve done for them is as valuable as you say it is, if they are indebted to you morally but not legally, my experience is they will give you nothing, and they will begin to act cruelly toward you.
Joe Ross: Why?
Jimmy Dell: To suppress their guilt.

I would say more but it’s a great under-rated film and I wouldn’t want to spoil anything.

The film aside, I think the idea in neo’s essay often plays out, that the socially powerful person in a situation not only gets to win but gets to absolve him- or herself from feeling bad while making the other person feel even worse.