"""
Microscopic invaders were more of the threat nowadays. Just to name one example, there was Red Death, a.k.a. the Seven Minute Special, a tiny aerodynamic capsule that burst open after impact and released a thousand or so corpuscle-size bodies, known colloquially as cookie-cutters, into the victim's bloodstream. [...]
Such inventions had spawned concern that people from Phyle A might surreptitiously introduce a few million lethal devices into the bodies of members of Phyle B, providing the technically sweetest possible twist on the trite, ancient dream of being able instantly to turn a whole society into gravy. [...]
What worked in the body could work elsewhere, which is why phyles had their own immune systems now. The impregnable-shield paradigm didn't work at the nano level; one needed to hack the mean free path. A well-defended clave was surrounded by an aerial buffer zone infested with immunocules—microscopic aerostats designed to seek and destroy invaders. [...]
It was always foggy in the Leased Territories, because all of the immunocules in the air served as nuclei for the condensation of water vapor. If you stared carefully into the fog and focused on a point inches in front of your nose, you could see it sparkling, like so many microscopic searchlights, as the immunocules swept space with lidar beams. [...] The sparkling of tiny lights was the evidence of microscopic dreadnoughts hunting each other implacably through the fog, like U-boats and destroyers in the black water of the North Atlantic.
"""
I spent some time searching for this source today, I think it was an NPR article? But honestly, I can't find it. Maybe I made it up, and if so, I apologize.
I recently read (and enjoyed) Casey Tanner's _Feel it All_, which takes the stance that lack of sex ed is little-t traumatic, and backs up that argument convincingly.
It's a surprisingly positive read, given that thesis. The idea that we should be tought (in an age approptiate way) how our bodies work and how to respect others shouldn't be controversial, and yet, here we are.
The article mostly blames pornography and digital addiction, but I think those are symptoms of a larger problem, which is lack of belonging and community. If life sucks, you have few friends you can afford the time or money to see, and you work to make other people rich until you are exhausted, when do you have time and energy to maintain a relationship? If you feel like the world is on fire, it's hard to get in the mood.
It would help if we built third spaces that weren't centered around alcohol, which is also declining in popularity, especially with young adults.
Americans: why isn't anyone having sex anymore??
Also Americans: Abstinence only! You'll get pregnant! No abortions! STDs will kill you! Men deserve sex! We're not going to teach you how your body works!
Of course we end up with declining sex, in a country so obsessed with individualism and sex-adverse.
I do see hope though. The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
I would be really interested to see if sex frequency is declining for everyone, or just for people who aren't putting in any emotional labor to learning and growing as a person when it comes to sexuality.
I think a lot of millennials, myself included, are "people pleasers", who push our own needs aside to make others happy. Again and again.
This works, until we burn out and crash. I certainly have - I spent most of 2024 severely burnt out, and part of it was not protecting my time and setting healthy boundaries.
There's a balance between serving others and taking time to rest. Existing in community takes sacrifice and sometimes that means setting your own needs aside. But being in community also means that others can step up to help you when you need to rest, sharpen your saw, etc. People pleasing and setting poor boundaries in the context of (American) individualism means being a jerk.
I read somewhere (can't find it now, I'm literally on an operating table) that people in more community-focused cultures were more comfortable taking alone time. Because they know that if they take time, things aren't going to fall apart without them. The community will be there to welcome them back in, and nobody will be upset for them taking the time that they need.
Came here to say exactly this. Perhaps someday, someone will figure out how to target specific proteins in the immune memory using a modified measles virus?
My grandma always joked when I did something dumb that she could shine a light in one of my ears and see it out the other. Years ahead of the science, apparently.
I appreciate the response! I really enjoy talking about this stuff so please take my long response as just me thinking out loud.
I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
> A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around
I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
I'm not saying you have to go to church, or that a makerspace or spicy setting can't be a community. And I do think a lot of them can foster relationships that turn into real community. But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully. Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
I too hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority, although I'm starting to soften on that last one (authority), as I find progressive spaces that vet and hold accountable their leadership. Without a web of trust and accountability we are all just off on our own, pulling in many different directions at the same time, while conservatives have figured out how to get everyone working on the same few problems, regardless of minor differences.
I'm obviously exaggerating and using metaphor, but what else makes a good story :)
I think belonging is one of the most important contributors to mental health, and anecdotally, fewer liberals and leftists "belong" to a group.
There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations. Evangelical conservative megachurches are designed to foster a sense of belonging and community for those who can believe their teachings. Progressive churches celebrate the questioning mind and search for meaning, which actively does not create a culture of conformity, and hence raises the barrier to allow people to feel like they belong.
We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting. Leftists also have a problem with gatekeeping, contrast this with evangelicals who design easy paths in to their churches for folks who "haven't done the required reading"
Additionally, the active suppression of liberal/leftist and queer groups (e.g. McCarthyism), the AIDS crisis, leftist infighting, and leftist distrust of authority mean a lot of young progressives are starting from scratch or facing large headwinds in finding any sort of social group. The Internet is helping combat this, but the lack of elders, advisors, and established routes to leadership mean that there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Contrast this with conservative groups which have generations of experience, leadership routes, training, etc. Individual evangelical colleges matriculate thousands of students while progressive religious programs are lucky to number in the 30-50 range.
Source: anecdotes and personal experience, as someone with leadership experience in a progressive religion :)
Running into this same issue. I tried to send you an email but it bounced. The error was "Your message couldn't be delivered ... because the remote server is misconfigured ... 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied". Just FYI :)
There's a few people in here doing whataboutism like this. Where are you getting the idea that the "left" or whoever banned words in scientific articles?
The one that says there are only two genders and disagrees with biological reality, confuses sex and gender, and is mostly about fear instead of education.
Oh, I agree! I was just frustrated that they were willing to break the rules to defeat Bernie (but then when they lose to the Republicans, it's just too bad and we must follow the rules).
I dunno. I'm not arguing that Dems should break rules/laws/whatever. I'm just venting about the hypocrisy that I think cost them the 2016 and 2024 elections.
One of my radicalizing events was in 2016, when I was a delegate for Bernie at the Colorado caucus. (I can't recall exactly what level, but there were probably 200 people in the room.
The Hillary folks controlled the stage and completely ignored the Bernie crowd's calls of "point of order!", throwing out the rules to rush through their agenda despite the wishes of (more than?) half the crowd.
I know Bernie has a lot of detractors, and the calls of "socialist!" scare a lot of people off. But still, the process should have happened. I still think he had a real shot of winning 2016, because people were ready to overturn the system and the Dems establishment didn't see it. So instead many people who wanted that revolution turned to the other person who promised to burn it all down. Maybe I'm libbing out, but _I want to believe_.
I got incredibly ill for days after that experience, likely from the fact that there were a lot of folks yelling and sharing germs in a closed room, but also from the sheer stress of seeing the establishment flagrantly violate Robert's Rules when it served them, and state it as law when that served them instead.
I'm still mad. Thanks for sharing your experience.