As with any species of advanced sociality, self preservation is a required trait for any species’ continued survival. This basic trait responsible for the continued existence of a species takes many shapes — relative to the needs of said species.
This author previously alluded to an upcoming article concerning self preservation — not healthcare. However, many key points overlap between these two — more critical in concept for the latter. That said, more on self preservation will be covered after this article.
Humans are not simply a species exhibiting sociality, we exhibit advanced sociality. While the ingredients of advanced sociality contains key markers from social constructs, the exact recipe is not currently ratified. To this, we can identify distinctions from other species of limited sociality — as yet requiring advanced development. We are unique in our requirements, and thus exhibit unique traits in response. While the exact shape of advanced sociality remains loose, the key markers currently known are certain in their assignment. Core of these markers are the use of social constructs.
Use of social constructs represent an extended social ability. The shared concepts of function & value are based on the same as species without advanced sociality. If one were to study the social behaviour of meerkats, the findings would describe a shared social responsibility in protecting the community by watching for predators. While these similarities are evident in their core values, the complexities of advanced sociality are key to this advancement being separate.
Social constructs as understood in human societies are critical in maintaining the complex function of our species. As an example, law enforcement, emergency services through medical, fire and environmental protection — all function to maintain key components, critical of our continued use of complex sociality. We are a species of entropic adaptation. To this, aspects of our social complexity are evident in the social constructs we develop. Thus, any incompatible function within a social construct is adjusted to eliminate these incompatibilities.
Were we to study the basic function of emergency services — fire prevention, adaptation is inherent to this service remaining compatible to our needs. As an example, were the response times inadequate for a certain community, a new fire station might be built closer to that area. As basic as this is, it outlines clear use of entropic adaptation. More need will be met with more response, and less need will be met with less response — but response all the same.
With the basics on how social constructs support sustainable social behaviour/function, the entropic adaptation these constructs represent can only exist while remaining inline with sustainable social function. However, there are situations where the function of a social construct rests on the prescribed needs of society — as influenced by unsustainable social pressures. Without treading into the complexities of social services for a given society, an examination of the basic contributors these incompatibilities represent is as far as we need to look.
We will cover two such incompatibilities — fundamental of healthcare and of personal self preservation. While these may appear very similar, the separation is clear: one rests within the function of a social construct, the other specific to an individual. For a social construct to maintain compatible social function, it must operate within the scope of it’s defined function — thus, one social construct cannot act upon the responsibilities of another. Second to this, it must provide a social capability unbiased of all functions it represents — thus, a social construct cannot retract it’s responsibilities towards a specific task, for no other social construct is able to address that task.
Where does a social construct fail in providing value in a society? This can only happen in the two aforementioned scenarios. It should be emphasized that any sustainable social construct must exhibit entropic adaptation as part of it’s core function. For without this, you will have an unsustainable element in a society — detrimental to the continued existence of the respective species.
As an example of failure within a social construct, we will look at Healthcare — as a social capability. Now, let’s look at a single unsustainable element in social function: smoking. Smoking is a social concept, and thus a class of society is born: smokers. To address this properly, we need to go back to when smoking was most popular. In this instance, the height of tobacco production and social acceptance: 1920—1960s. Here, the popularized social value of this activity was substantial. Every culture around the world accepted this ritual with open arms. Then, medical evidence emerged pointing to the ill effects of this activity. In response, a social construct responsible for the physical health of society investigated these findings. Soon afterwards, evidence revealed proof that smoking led to many health issues, resulting in smokers’ premature death.
Here is where a social construct fails in delivering compatible responses to society. The social construct responsible for the physical heath of members in society, is only responsible for reactive methods. If you break a leg, they will aid your recovery, but do not control the factors that allowed you to break the leg. The social construct responsible for shaping health policies that aid social governance, does not define the laws of society. The responsibility in health related risk rests at the top of the social governance pyramid — government. So far, this is all fine, nothing amiss here.
Once it’s discovered that smoking is harmful to the heath of society, entropic adaptation kicks in and applies a counter measure to prevent this harm from affecting members of society. However, this counter measure is defined by the members of a social construct that are not associated with any of the subservient social constructs who identified the threat. In other words, the social constructs that are responsible for the physical health of society have no ability to change laws that govern society. As a result, the social construct at the top level must apply a counter measure — relative to all aspects within it’s unique scope, thus, a disconnect is now found.
What are the results of such a disconnect? These would be the influential elements outside of the medical and health space. It’s like a school principal being asked to plan a spelling contest, or the CEO of an automaker asked to design a car. The scope of contributing factors in defining a counter measure for smoke related health conditions, are disconnected from the scope of those social constructs that are sensitive to the relevant contributing health factors — supporting an accurate response.
Using an unrelated scope of contributing factors means consideration from unrelated areas will play key roles in the definition of the official response, an inaccurate response. The end result is not one from a medical or health care scope, but from a top level government scope. To that, a heavy tax is placed on tobacco sales to discourage its use. Why? Because this type of response is within the scope of this kind of social construct, so it was used. Likewise, with more pressure from each health centric social construct, the top level government responds with an increased tax layer. While the increase in tax does have a measurable impact, the effect is minimal. In time, the population growth matches the shrinking consumer base — revealing little or no gain in eliminating the health impacts on society.
The real issue hasn’t been revealed just yet, for the discouragement of smoking remains only as a discouragement on the surface. Only by outlawing smoking outright will there be true discouragement for smoking — yet somehow it’s never considered. Why? Because the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco is now used to support other social programs. The government that composed the initial response to the growing health concern, is now dependant on it — a stakeholder in a social concept that’s outside the defined scope of it’s operation. It has overstepped it’s space into the space belonging to the scope of other social constructs.
Why is smoking not declared illegal? Because a top level social construct applied biased function towards this one task. Were this top level social construct to use the same response for other health related threats, asbestos would still be sold as home insulation, just taxed heavily to discourage it’s use.
To investigate the differences between these similar tasks, and the response taken — is not the objective of this article, but perhaps a task suited for readers.
Second, the top level social construct also failed by stepping out of it’s defined space of responsibility (assumed the role of a heath care social construct). What could have happened instead? For a top level social construct to provide governance over the area of another social construct — is unsustainable.
What might have been a more sustainable move, would be to request a formal response by the social construct responsible for the physical health of society. The response can be evaluated and implemented by the top level — while backed by the health experts within the health domain. The sale of tobacco should have been outlawed based on the detrimental impact it has in society, not maintained as a revenue stream.
Anytime there’s an overstep in responsibility, peripheral impacts are usually unseen until later. As a result of becoming a stakeholder in continued tobacco use, the healthcare industry became burdened with patients from those adverse health effects. As a result, the cost of healthcare rose to new heights, allowing basic care for the composite populous to become compromised. With the growing cost from the initial response, this in turn represented a larger operating cost to all of society (taxpayer). In time, the tax revenue collected from tobacco sales become insufficient in covering the growing cost of needed health care. The net effect is a deficit in operational capability to both the smoking culture as a whole, and to the health of the society as a whole.
Advanced sociality giving rise to social constructs must maintain a strong core of entropic adaptation. For a social construct not to adapt its function in light of a critical failing, is to maintain a rigid element within its function. As a result, the functions offered by this social construct becomes unsustainable. Not until this is corrected will the ripple effect impacting other social constructs cease. As per Universal Rights, introducing an unsustainable element within a social construct is a violation of Universal Rights. Generating a revenue stream from the unsustainable activity of society is to endorse unsustainable social function directly — a violation of Universal Rights. Assuming the role of another social construct is to compromise the effectiveness of the affected social construct — a violation of Universal Rights.