#1,750 in Health, fitness & dieting books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 14
We found 14 Reddit mentions of The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit. Here are the top ones.
or
Oxford University Press USA
Specs:
| Height | 1.08 Inches |
| Length | 9.24 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Weight | 1.58291904116 Pounds |
| Width | 6.17 Inches |
When you get that urge to consume, ask yourself a question along the lines of: "What void am I trying to fill? What personal problem am I trying to fix? How else can I fill that void or fix that problem?"
You have to get down to the source of why you want to consume. Where is that feeling coming from?
I highly recommend "The Globalization of Addiction" ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Globalization-Addiction-Poverty-Spirit/dp/0199588716).
It covers how free market society causes people to feel socially and culturally disconnected, and how people substitute real human experiences with consumption (food, drugs, shopping).
It's almost cliche for people to say that they have a stressful day at work, so they come home and unwind with comfort food, alcohol, mindless TV and a trip to the mall on weekends. Instead of looking inward to the source of their problems, they look outward for temporary material fixes.
Next time you feel the urge to buy something, ask yourself what feelings you are trying fill. It's could be that you're using consumption as a substitute for something deeper. Dig one layer deeper and ask yourself some honest questions.
I personally know 4 former heroin addicts who one day got up and simply stopped using their drug of choice because they felt like it was interfering with their ability to enjoy life. As with cigarettes, addictions are not always lifelong and some people simply stop.
There are many myths about heroin, a couple are (1) it provides unbelievable amounts of pleasure that override any other needs of the end user and (2) that heroin is such an addictive substance that exposure to it causes a lifelong attachment. (1) is clearly wrong, as shown by two studies by Smith and Beecher in the late 50's/early 60's. They are:
Smith, G.M., Beecher, H.K., 1959, Measurement of “mental clouding” and other subjective effects of morphine, J. Pharmacol. 126:50–62.
Smith, G.M., Beecher, H.K., 1962, Subjective effects of heroin and morphine in normal subjects. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 136, 47–52.
These two studies found that in a double-blind setting where healthy volunteers are not told which drug they are getting, subjective effects of euphoria are sparse, if even existent. Most of those receiving the drug reported mental cloudiness, physical side effects, and dysphoria.
On (2), the claim that it is always highly addictive is also without merit. There are a number of studies in which rats or mice fail to show a preference for sweetened morphine water when allowed to choose between sweet water with and without morphine. The most famous is B.K. Alexander's "rat park" paper, in which rats that are allowed to live in normal social environments show no preference at all for water containing morphine. If the drug is so dangerous and addictive, why would no animals use it when in a healthy environment?
There is a wealth of more knowledge regarding this, along with references, in B.K. Alexander's "The Globalization of Addiction", Chapter 8.
They love inflation--as long as they get the newly created money first. They're scared to death of deflation. Deflation is reality asserting itself. They have many more tools to deal with inflation than deflation.
I broadly agree with you, but I think you are discounting the effect that voting has when one of the parties is the Republicans. No, I am not lionizing the Democrats; it's simply that the Republicans are that bad. The reason for strong unions was the labor movement and activism. This was, of course, aided by the fact that labor paid a living wage, and it wasn't so much cheaper for them to replace labor with capital equipment (automation), etc.
With regard to economic inequality and electoral politics in the US, I recommend:
Larry M. Bartels
Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age
1/23/10 Edition
ISBN-13: 978-0691146232, ISBN-10: 0691146233
With regard to why people vote for Trump:
"Finally, he challenges conventional explanations for why many voters seem to vote against their own economic interests, contending that working-class voters have not been lured into the Republican camp by "values issues" like abortion and gay marriage, as commonly believed, but that Republican presidents have been remarkably successful in timing income growth to cater to short-sighted voters."
Communism? There is no such thing. Perhaps there will be one day, but there are serious practical problems with implementation. Communism works well for communes. It doesn't scale. The human family (should be) a communist institution. I know it's boring, but social democracy is probably the best we can do now. If there is something I should read which makes some other case, I'll bite.
Rather than blather on, it is better that I just link to something worth your time.
Bruce Alexander
The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
1st Edition
ISBN-13: 978-0199588718, ISBN-10: 0199588716
https://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Addiction-Study-Poverty-Spirit/dp/0199588716
This book shows that the social circumstances that spread addiction in a conquered tribe or a falling civilisation are also built into today's globalizing free-market society. A free-market society is magnificently productive, but it subjects people to irresistible pressures towards individualism and competition, tearing rich and poor alike from the close social and spiritual ties that normally constitute human life. People adapt to their dislocation by finding the best substitutes for a sustaining social and spiritual life that they can, and addiction serves this function all too well.
A very related note is the well documented link between dislocation and addiction, especially alcohol addiction. Bruce Alexander first noted this and documented first in a paper and then in a full book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Globalization-Addiction-Poverty-Spirit/dp/0199588716/ Of course there's trauma behind addiction.
I mention this because Chogyam Trungpa was forcibly displaced from his home and culture. He didn't join the Tibetan communities in exile in India, so despite having many social connections didn't have much personal support from equals and those from his own culture. He was an alcoholic. I think that's connected.
Dislocation has been normalized now - we regularly say goodbye to family and friends to go off to study and work. But it has a strong effect, and I think has contributed to people not knowing what a real community is.
​
Despite CTR being a charismatic and gifted teacher, it's clear he had addiction (and trauma) issues. And that's part of the foundation of what created Shambhala. There have been no leaders of Shambhala that didn't have them. Like attracts like. Says something about who's drawn to Shambhala. And it's created a culture such that those dark places behind addiction have been made hard to talk about in the community.
​
​
​
> like to label you with a 'disorder', send you on your way with meds, and if that doesn't 'fix' you, it's your individual responsibility
That's what this book on addiction says _'The Globalization of Addiction'_ that it is a systemic problem. Addiction can never be solved if the environment people live in is exactly the same as what a person left to go to a "treatment program" from. If people are disconnected, chronically stressed, alienated, persecuted,(often in poverty on top of all of that), there is no way to not be very susceptible to some kind of addiction.
What I say above is not a theory, it is a fact. Criminalizing drug use benefits no one. There is no good side to this policy. It doesn't protect people from drugs and only serves to make treatment inaccessible to those who want it. There is and never has been an up side to this so called War on Drugs.
In any case, drugs are NOT the culprit. It isn't drugs that force their way into people's lives and turn them into addicts. Not one bit. People have to take immense risks and work very hard to become heroin addicts for example. No one has ever given heroin away. It's expensive, hard to find, cut with all kinds of poisons and often gets the addict sick, in trouble with the law and rejected from normal society. It's not something done recreationally.
So what's the cause of the wide spread drug addiction from which our society suffers so much? Why are so many people, in ever increasing numbers, doing whatever they can to get their hands on these substances?
This is a very good question that is seldom considered and well worth looking into by anyone with a serious interest. The best answer I've come across is in a book by Bruce Alexander, the psychologist famous for the "Rat Park Experiment" experiment. If you haven't heard of it, it is well worth taking time to read.
Rat Park, in brief, was an experiment in which a bunch of lab rats were given the choice between drinking water laced with cocaine or pure water. Almost every rat started drinking the water spiked with cocaine, losing weight and health because of it.
After they were all addicted, they were taken out of their tiny isolated cages and put into a special environment designed to be as pleasant as possible for rats. There were living plants, dirt to dig borrow in, the presence of other rats to socialize with and so on. It was nothing like the horrible little cages they had known all their lives. The rats loved it!
After being in rat park for a short time all the rats stopped drinking the water with cocaine in it and only wanted pure water. Why?
What does this indicate?
If you're curious, you should check out Bruce Alexander's most recent book called The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit. It explains, with tons of proof and detail the real cause of addiction in the world today.
Just stumbled across this stuff after I saw your post.
http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Addiction-Study-Poverty-Spirit/dp/0199588716/
http://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addiction/dp/155643880X/
And hey, dust-off has that appeal because it basically lets you zone out, or zone in, or whatever... the stillness has an appeal, but you know what, you're self-aware and cognizant and you'll be able to zen out sans huff and be healthier for it. Hey, your experiences will always be a part of you, but they're learning experiences that you can carry with you and integrate into your worldview in a healthy, manageable way, instead of letting guilt eat you alive or anything like that. You aren't evil or anything for having used opiates or any other drug.
Glad you're here, and glad to read that you're starting that program. Take care, friend.
Bruce Alexander's (of Rat Park fame) book is a must-read, imo:
The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
Addiction is never caused by substances. One can be surrounded by substances of all kinds and even enjoy them once in a while and not become addicted. This even goes for heroin. A group of friends can all try it and most will not become addicted. Addiction takes time and effort. It is not something that happens to people; rather it is a behavior people adopt whenever they are over-stressed or depression, they feel helpless to improve their situation in tangible ways, or when they're isolated and without membership in any supportive communities.
If you're interested in the science of addiction, there is no better resource than Bruce Alexander's amazing new book The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit.
Bruce Alexander, well-known for the seminal Rat Park Experiment which turned our understanding of the causes of addiction on its head, describes the common factors between all addictions, whether overtly beneficial like workaholicism or popular like shopaholicism and so on.
He concludes that addiction is increasing the world over because of the destruction of community by free-market ideology and the increasing isolation of individuals.
Anyway, the main point is this: substances are never the causes of addictions. What causes someone to become an addict and another just to try something and walk away disinterested, is a very important topic these days.
In your case, for example, you said you used to skip school and avoid family so that you could smoke weed. I suspect that it wasn't solely the great attractiveness of weed that caused you to behave this way. In fact I would guess that smoking weed was only a superficial symptom of the cause of your addictive behaviors and that there is something you have overlooked as the real cause. Perhaps depression or social phobias, or unbearable anxieties, or a difficulty adapting to a meaningless and pointless occupation.... The potential causes of addiction are many and we are exploring all of them more than ever. I
To me, this indicates that we're living in a profoundly sick society and that people are so despairing and hopeless that they'll do whatever they can to self-medicate their hopelessness or loneliness away.
>är det inte lite så att vi borde titta på en mer generell lösning på missbruk?
För detta krävs ju att man faktiskt intresserar sig för främmande perspektiv.
T.ex.:
>Det är självklart att den avancerade teknologin, vårt avancerade samhälle etc har bidraget till ett lyckligare liv.
Intressant observation. Vad grundar du detta påstående på? Många moderna sjukdomar och oönskade sinnestillstånd är nämligen direkt kopplade till den stress som uppstår till följd av all hets och framtidsdyrkan.
Ett fåtal exempel är koncentrationssvårigheter, generaliserat ångestsyndrom, klinisk depression samt missbrukarbeteenden.
>Personligen så siktar jag på att nå min högsta potential. Har nyligen fått min första riktiga jobb och siktar på att jobba mig uppåt. Jag vill lära mig mer om organisation och struktur, få arbetserfarenhet kort och gott.
Tittade du på videoklippet jag länkade till? Det du beskriver är nämligen precis den vanföreställning som oerhört många lever med. Det är den närmast religiösa tron på att meningsfullhet i livet endast går att uppnå genom en ständig strävan efter ett (illusoriskt) mål.
Varför vill du lära dig mer om organisation och struktur? Varför vill du få det du kallar arbetserfarenhet?
Missförstå mig inte. Jag ser inget problem i att arbeta, däremot ser jag ett problem i att arbeta (och studera) för ett mål som inte existerar. Studier, forskning, kreativa övningar och arbete bör alla vara mål i sig själva. Ens huvudsakliga syssla i livet bör vara ovillkorligt meningsfull, utan krav på framtida prestation och resultat.
Jag studerade varken matematik eller teoretisk fysik för att jag hade ett mål i sikte, utan jag gjorde det enkom för att det var roligt och för att jag upplevde en i arbetet inneboende meningsfullhet. Detsamma gäller min heltidssyssla (forskning och viss undervisning) samt mitt skapande av musik.
>Med att spela musik så blir det inte roligt att vara på samma nivå och ständigt spela samma låtar.
Ännu en intressant observation. Att vänja sig vid en låt så pass att man direkt hamnar i ett flow när den framförs är nämligen bland det mest njutbara som går att uppleva i musikväg. Visst improviserar man ibland, men det sker spontant och man gör det inte för att man känner att man uppnår ett framtida mål.
Detsamma gäller matematikstudier; man utforskar inte den matematiska världen för att man föreställer sig ett framtida mål, utan för att man upplever en villkorslös mening i de intellektuella och de kreativa aspekterna av arbetet.
>Man vill lära sig mer och bli bättre, såklart. Detta är detsamma i vårat samhälle. Man jobbar för att att effektivera och förbättra allt ständigt. Det är inte logiskt att anse att det är något negativt.
Jag förmodar att detta är vad man får lära sig under sin uppväxt, men anser du alltså att man inte bör ifrågasätta de rådande normerna?
Se gärna detta klipp (även detta är omkring två minuter långt) gällande effektivisering inom grundskolan. Kohn har även författat boken Feel-Bad Education som disktuerar ämnet mer utförligt.
Varför vill du effektivisera allt? Du talar om logik, men du har själv inte konstruerat ett logiskt giltigt argument som talar för din vilja att sträva efter mer och bättre.
Du verkar basera din tro på rena auktoritetsargument och naturalistiska felslut. Har du studerat argumentationsanalys, kritiskt tänkande eller logik på någon nivå högre än den som eventuellt lärs ut vid gymnasiet (formellt eller på fritiden)?
Vad är det du personligen försöker uppnå med din effektivisering?
Kort och gott: När du står inför döden, vad tror du dig då ha fått ut av din ständiga strävan efter effektivisering?
(Du springer i ett mentalt hamsterhjul för att du tror att det tar dig till ett odefiniterat (och odefinierbart) mål; det är fullt möjlig att stiga av hjulet och istället ta sig en joggingrunda i vacker skogsmiljö, och på så vis njuta av det medan det sker, utan att allt hänger på hallucinerade framtidsvisioner.)
The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit by Bruce Alexander (famous for the Rat Park experiments).
hey sorry for the insane late reply. this book http://www.amazon.com/The-Globalization-Addiction-Poverty-Spirit/dp/0199588716 does a great job of highlighting free markets effect on dislocation. gabor mate is terrific too. also there are many studies on stress from poverty. you really have to take an interdisciplinary approach to hit the big theory
Knowledge is power, friend.
Addiction is a difficult thing to deal with. I was recommended this book ("The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit") and I, in turn, recommend that you read it.
Seriously. Buy it and read it.