Because the nervous connections operate faster and on less energy. I don't think you understood my reference. You could start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
From the summary of Kahneman's book in the article:
"The System 1 vs. System 2 debate dives into the reasoning or lack thereof for human decision making, with big implications for many areas including law and market research."
...which is exactly what I'm talking about. The law and commerce, the obvious. Your original insistence about efficiency may be true within the current context (defeatist, but true). I'm interested in changing the context to something that actually reflects humanity.
The people who want to end women reproductive autonomy are more like to consider the a body sacred than those who do not, and are much less likely to be humanists.
Only as a matter of lip service do they consider the body to be sacred. In practice, they are just as likely to leave the homeless on the street and let our military blow kids up in poor countries to further our commercial and security interests.
But on the plus side, their religious texts do give us a common language for discussing the primacy of the body and autonomy. Because as ****** as Christians can be, they do read the Bible.
You don't need the body to be sacred to arrive at autonomy being fundamental. If anything, it usually interferes with the concept.
It only interferes at the debate table. In practice, the concept works tremendously well. And we have ample examples.
Local police forces, for example, are treated as "sacred" and "untouchable". Before the Blue Lives Matter idea ever became a meme, everyone understood implicitly that this is a protected-to-the-point-of-worship class of human beings. And because of those protections, they have tremendous autonomy, political power, and cachet in their communities. They have robust benefits, pensions, and legal resources at their disposal. And they have the benefit of being made a
mythologized class for free by many Americans.
Large corporations and their agents are also treated like sacred entities in this country. Their property is protected diligently by the aforementioned police, and they wield immense political power through their policies and ability to lobby. They even have the basic rights of an American citizen, albeit enhanced by their brand and resources.
Property value is treated as sacred in this country. To the point that if a mayor in Draper, UT brings a homeless person to a community meeting to discuss placement of a shelter there, both of them get booed out of the building:
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5116759&itype=CMSID
So there are three examples for you of sacrosanct entities. Just because we do not use the usual terminology doesn't change the basic facts of how these entities are treated and venerated.
There is a difference between "catering" and "changing". In this context, they seem opposed to me.
It's a cereal vs. milk argument. Type 1s do not exist in a vacuum.
Any solution that runs contrary to the way human brains operate biologically is doomed to failure.
Dropping our antebellum constructs abandons nothing that is human. It is our adoption of them in the first place (to justify human trafficking) that has caused a great many of us to act like insects.