On the same exact day what is acceptable in China may not be in a nation a few hundred miles or less from their border. What is accepted in Texas may not be in California and what goes on in Alabama may not fly in New York.
What is ok culturally in a small town in Georgia may not be ok in Atlanta. In a city, you can travel a few blocks and the “rules” and culture can change. It can even be a moment in time. A popular and not entirely untrue argument for example is that when judging something like how some acted in a crisis situation when you have no personal experience and can’t relate to theirs, weren’t there, and are judging from a safe place without danger and adrenaline and distractions and such- sometimes the “truth” of that specific moment is only going to make sense to someone who lived it.

The second take away is perspective. Much the same as an action which may have made one very successful at one point and time would likely lead to their ruin if tried outside their time on people with other values- it is a perspective issue.
Owning slaves in the southern USA was at one point not only a key path to success and socially accepted, it was even embraced and celebrated. Now, if we were to transport such a slave owner to the modern day and they attempted to revive their operation in plain view of the world, it would most likely (sad that recent political events and social trends make it so I must say most likely) be seen as disgusting and unacceptable to the majority and lead to their likely ruination and possibly even death. This is perspective. Different time and place. Well, there is also more localized perspective.

One might argue that in the time and culture the Donner Party incident occurred cannibalism was near unbearably considered wrong- but there are two take aways there.
The first is that those willing to do the universally wrong thing tended to survive. A pattern in history. Adherence to social conventions is a strategy that tends to have the best success the less dire the circumstances, though such social manipulations can work even in dire straights because we are often less logical than emotional. With that said- those who did what was required survived to reproduce in greater numbers despite going against social values and customs.

Most family trees are full of people who by modern standards we would call murderers, human rights abusers, sex offenders, liars, cheaters, philanderers, back stabbers, selfish, ruthless, amoral sorts. As human society has grown, our rules and standards of conduct have become more complex. There are cycles of where resources and security were scarce and not, when social rules were strict or not, when morals have been defined in treatment of others and human rights and not.
Or at least less so.
The ability to survive or thrive by doing nothing or being congenial was developed as we socially developed. We grant others human rights as a luxury in general. If those treatments would interfere with our survival we generally suspend them or die unless we are lucky or particularly gifted to be able to find a way to do both. More often we take a pragmatic approach and then justify it to suit our morals.

As a matter of fact, evidence better supports that mankind and even the animal kingdom is and has been prevalent with unhappiness and mental discomfort or functional issues regardless of the time and place. It is not that modern society necessarily creates these feelings, it is more so that while still relatively primitive, mankind has advanced our knowledge and ability in being able go offer people options when they are impacted by cognitive or emotional behavior that impairs their function or well being. The image of some agrarian past or simpler time when people were “mentally well and normal” is a fallacy.
The knowledge and understanding just wasn’t there so people got blanket labels like “odd” or “simple” or “off” etc. and most people just left them to be especially if they weren’t causing any major social issues.

Indeed. Modern psychology and pharmacology aren’t perfect, and there are companies and others perpetuating a profit cycle through healthcare of ALL sorts-
But the fact it isn’t perfect and some are pushing their own agendas does not mean that there aren’t people genuinely trying to help and people genuinely being helped.
We can’t “cure cancer” either with broad certainty, but we can treat and a manage it better than ever and give more people a chance at a better quality of life through it.
So an outlook that ignores either truth in favors of extremes is patently at odds with reality.

The thing is that usually these sentiments are exaggerated. Most people are grateful for their lives. Grateful enough to continue living and grateful enough that there are plenty of people they wouldn’t trade lives with.
The real sort of take away from this sort of thought experiment is that we CHOOSE to live this way.

Because polar bears and pigeons can’t. Most “unhomed” people can’t. Yet- they survive just fine and most live complete and natural life spans. If you get critically injured and go for medical care, will they let you die? Generally not in a developed country. Even america where healthcare is paid but they can’t deny life saving care because you can’t pay and they can’t put you in prison for owing them. You can owe a billion dollars to the hospital and still go get care. Can any random bear do that?

There are subtle differences but ultimately it is the same. If you weren’t working 8+ hours to secure your essentials for survival you’d still likely be toiling in repetition to secure what you needed to survive.
In most developed nations it is pretty difficult to die of scarcity. We wouldn’t have growing “tent cities” and such if it were so hard to get basic things to survive without employment.
But I mean- what’s stopping you? Can you afford a place to sleep and be out of the weather? Can you pay for running water and gas and electricity? Internet or cell phone? Streaming video? A night out here and there? A car?

Same thing. A routine with stress and dangers of failure, generally less dangers and lighter consequences than the “wild.”
You generally don’t beat your cheat and howl and wrestle (in the literal sense) for mating rights and social position and resources, instead we have complex social and economic and legal and other systems to navigate and master to gain dominance and the rights to claim what you want.

We can analyze it all to no end and find no singular universally accepted “purpose” or “meaning.” In our society you don’t generally forage and hunt your meals and patrol your territory for threats and such daily. Instead you generally can get food someone else worked to make or grow or kill and preparation doesn’t have to take hours or all day or months. It can be ready to eat as you like.
Others patrol and watch for danger while you do other things. Instead of hunting and such to get food and essentials to live, you probably go to work etc. if you’re relatively independent.

you inspire me with hope. Please continue to be awesome.

So to even consider pushing that button I’d need a whole lot more information, but just from the info I have, pushing that button seems like a TERRIBLE idea.

Nothing about this says bad things won’t happen to you. In fact, all the bad things could happen to you everyday and you’d still be happy. On the one hand one could argue that since we seek human companionship and we seek achievements and do things with a goal to be happy- and most of our survival drives manifest as stimuli that make us “happy” or “unhappy,” it wouldn’t matter if you got every disease and went to prison and got torn apart by monkeys or everyone you knew died or suffered or you spend the rest of your life alone. Of course if you are a person who seeks more than just happiness, who thinks that our deeds or achievements are important or have goals beyond just happiness etc- which most people do or else we’d all just be drunk and high non stop until we died or something- then that might concern you.

And where things can get REAL psychologically screwed up real fast is… do you ONLY feel extremely happy, or can you fill mixes of emotions? If you can’t things are still an ambiguous mess but a little easier to contemplate. If you CAN feel mixed emotions…. What do you suppose happens to someone who being hurt or having bad things happen to them results in happy feelings? So say you do something and feel shame, but you also feel… extremely happy. The reward center of your brain can and likely will start linking thing together. While you could be just as happy doing anything else, as humans we tend to form patterns and routines. If the day you pushed that button was the same day a bunch of messed up stuff happened to you- you could end up seeking out humiliation or pain etc. pretty easily.

It says “extremely happy…” not appropriately happy, not very happy, extremely. As in- extreme. Now not only does extreme emotion compound those issues like social appropriateness, but…. Life might become a sort of hell, that you can’t escape, that you probably wouldn’t think of escaping. You’re ALWAYS extremely happy. It’s ambiguous if there is a range to that happiness- but it implies a singular level of constant happiness. Getting married or realizing your dream would theoretically give you the same happiness as stubbing your toe. The implications there are… that could go a lot of ways and most of them are kinda dark and twisted. We also don’t know… if you’re always extremely happy, could you adjust to being extremely happy and perhaps even become depressed at your happiness? Or would you be happy even if life lost all flavor and feeling of meaning?

3. You’re happy… for the rest of your life. Even if you don’t get murdered or have your genitals completely removed or whatever else-
That probably isn’t a good thing. Parents, kids, wife die? You’re happy to get the news. You’re at the funeral smiling and cheerful. Get dumped? Happy. Your partner has the worst news of their life? You’re happy. Lose everything and you’re living on the streets? Happy. Being violated? Happy. Not only is that incredibly messed up, it would be extremely socially isolating. Inability to relate to people, peoples inability to relate to you. Likely inability to react appropriately to social norms, and possibly a partial or complete loss of ambition and/or motivation.

Kinda horseshit. I know women who like “Teddy bears” that are big and “fluffy” and who like “otter bods” and “dad bods,” stalky guys “built like Pitt bulls” and lanky guys, skinny guys, buff guys… and lots of women dislike one or more of those or have limits. To some woman (or man etc.) your body type is beautiful. And.. society as a whole isn’t trying to make you change or weighing your social value on it. As a man- no one really cares that much about your body type. Your appearance can help perceptions of you, but your odds of getting a job or not because you are pear shaped aren’t quite the same as for women. So that’s sort of important to think about too.

Of a public seeking “traditional” gender ideas and dynamics.
Your two main options as a man are:
1. Change the social conception of gender by abandoning traditional ideas of masculinity and expressing yourself without concern to “normalcy” such as wearing makeup, wigs, flamboyant style choices, dresses and such…
2. Go lift weights and run or play basketball.
Of course that “men are bigger” gender role concept does mean that you are usually seen as more attractive as a man of you are taller, and there is nothing reasonable that can be done about that, but you can normalize things like men wearing high heels to give the impression of height and increase theoretical attractiveness at a glance to a mass public. As for your body type-

Men created a system where men’s primary values were certain things and most of them weren’t physical. For much of history an impetus has largely been that women need to be practical in choosing a mate as they’d rely on or be under control of that man- but men through much of history have been much freer to choose mates on physical reasoning. In fact, through much of modern history a “fit” or “rough” man would almost always be of a class or order to make a poor Lee provider than a less fit man. There are exceptions and such- as I said- I don’t want to make this extremely longer than I already have.
Long story short, the “beauty standards” and options for men are narrower in most societies because male gender concepts preclude many options for diversity in males attractiveness. Most people will find a “feminine” male unattractive by default (save certain subsets..) so with so much considered “feminine” and so little “masculine” a man must fit a narrow scope if he seeks mass approval

There are what can be called near purely physical or instinctual attractions, but really a good deal of what we are attracted to is acquired. We condition ourselves and there is usually a psychological component involved- a perception of that person which arouses us or an “image.” If you think of a rapper or gangster or “tough guy” most people get certain image cues, facial hair, larger size or muscled, tattoos etc.
you can be tough clean shaven in a cardigan looking like a young Tony McGuire- but that isn’t the image most of us have so if tough turns you on- toby probably won’t do it at a glance.

When it comes to physical attractiveness though- having signs of wealth or good genes and youth generally are widely appreciated in men, a full set of healthy looking or aesthetically pleasing teeth (wealth and good genes and discipline/self care), a full head of hair, being well groomed, and generally physical fitness and musculature are appreciated. In general this falls under the traditional gender ideas of men being “bigger” and “stronger.” Of course being “lanky” can be appreciated by women who like more youthful perceptions of men or who associate that with intelligence or “dorkiness” and such- but these get back to psychological triggers of attractiveness.