[nfoz]

Does the idea of "training adults to not take responsibility" have merit? It sounds like naive pop psychology.

We could remove all guard-rails (literal and figurative) from society. I guess you could say I'd be more "responsible" for staying alive under this scenario. But why is that good? It's just more inefficient and unpleasant for everyone to have to carefully check their every move in case something's trying to scam or possess them. The more you're tested, the more likely you'll fail. When instead we can just generally agree, via democratic means, to fix those systemic problems across-the-board. Then we can get on to solving better problems.

My own pop psych: you don't "conquer" temptation, so much as it wears at you. And it wears at some members of your community more than others. You solve it by removing the temptation (or yourself from it), not by facing it over and over.

As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails us. I will gladly accept limitations on my own entertainment if it helps my neighbour through a difficult struggle.

[blubb-fish]

well - with more responsibility the force of natural selection will become more prominent - I don't think that is a bad thing.

and the idea of recent generations having to face less and less responsibility is not just pop psychology. I think it is quite obvious with parents picking up their children at school (helicopter parenting) despite public transportation being more comfortable and crime rates being lower than in the past.

> And it wears at some members of your community more than others.

Those may seek help or suffer - their choice.

> As adults we should take responsibility for our community by fixing what ails us.

And this is not being done by prohibiting drugs but by working on the reasons why people start to abuse drugs.