[afarrell]

It is because humans have an irrational tendency towards sycophancy. This was true throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations and before them.

Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.

[paulryanrogers]

Wait, is this satire?

Surely we should resist our less productive qualities, like sycophancy. Not try to channel it to some "worthy cause".

[DiggyJohnson]

We can’t just snap our fingers and fix the tendencies that make us human, nor do we have the energy to resist every diversion from your perception of what is ideal.

I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.

[paulryanrogers]

I'm not proscribing perfection. Rather asking why can't each generation try to do better? Ideally without giving up on gains made elsewhere.

And if we must channel some unavoidable desires then must it be to adore people who won life's lottery? (Or must we heap praise upon someone who appears to have done little to move the needle forward?)

[afarrell]

If I try to see the millennial generation as a single decision-maker, I’d say it looks an awful lot like someone with multiple personalities.

Solving this problem requires solving coordination problems. Solving coordination problems requires creating a sense of community where people are motivated to act beyond their self interest. Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.

The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.

[paulryanrogers]

> Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.

Citation needed.

> The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.

Monarchs are born into unearned power, wealth, and privilege. They are the last people I'd consider successful at coordinating humanity for the better. Great Britain's own history is drenched in enough innocent blood. Whatever gains originated there appear largely attributable to luck and or non-royal endeavors.

[afarrell]

Not satire. If you think you should resist your tendency towards sycophancy, then you are free to let that guide your own life.

Others will do otherwise.

[HKH2]

Maybe you can do that, but can you empower other people to do the same?

You might kick one demon out of the house and get seven in return.

[paulryanrogers]

Contradictory biblical logic to the rescue. Guess I shouldn't expect anyone to avoiding resisting any demons, don't want to multiply them sevenfold! Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.

[viridian]

Surely you could have made your point without the unprovoked attack on Christianity?

I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.

You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.

[HKH2]

> Contradictory...

How?

> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.

We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.

[elenaferrantes]

We’re not robots