21–30 of 54 posts
Another version of this thesis is "it takes a village to rear a child"
I'm 59 btw
I think the main reason for the investment differential between the young and the old is that spending on the elderly is typically urgent. Problems for the elderly are mostly health related and if left unfunded will means someone, somewhere will be blamed. Problems for the young will show up later in some second order effect or missed opportunity. That's really hard to hold someone accountable for (especially public…
I really disliked this essay. It seems to not be saying very much; what little it's saying doesn't really need to be said; and moreover what little it's saying doesn't need to be said, of all times, right now. It strikes me as a kind of mawkish attempt to rebut the comments of two doctors about weighing the lives and well-being of younger people more heavily than that of older people when forced to make public policy…
Maybe just re-read this paragraph: > First of all, they evaluate the quality of life almost wholly in terms of activity, especially professional activity. Valuable years for Lee are “active and event-filled” years. Emanuel asserts, “There are not that many people who continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It’s a very small number.” It is hard to know whether this is true because he doesn’t d…
> And truth be told, it seems like Emanuel - who seems to have said some pretty unpleasant things and is the primary target here - was roped in as a way to tarnish Lee's more recent, more relevant, more even-handed comments.
Lee never defines active as having to do with professional activity (at least not in what's quoted in the article), that is Emanuel's definition.
> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…
I think the main reason for the investment differential between the young and the old is that spending on the elderly is typically urgent. Problems for the elderly are mostly health related and if left unfunded will means someone, somewhere will be blamed. Problems for the young will show up later in some second order effect or missed opportunity. That's really hard to hold someone accountable for (especially public…
You should always vote against improving the lives of those younger than you at the cost of your own well-being, since you will never be younger than you are now.
Some people care about the wellbeing of others. Even strangers (gasp!).
> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…
On the other hand I recall, as a PhD student, David Cox lightly napping in the audience of a conference (he'd have been about 90), only to wake up for the questions and fire off some insights. So there is certainly some merit in the theory of a nexus between 'meaningful work' and living a long and engaged life, at least for some people.
I think the main reason for the investment differential between the young and the old is that spending on the elderly is typically urgent. Problems for the elderly are mostly health related and if left unfunded will means someone, somewhere will be blamed. Problems for the young will show up later in some second order effect or missed opportunity. That's really hard to hold someone accountable for (especially public…
You should always vote against improving the lives of those younger than you at the cost of your own well-being, since you will never be younger than you are now.
> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…
> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…
I'd like to agree and note that assuming we get to post-scarcity conditioning quality of life on work will be a bad definition. On the other hand I recall, as a PhD student, David Cox lightly napping in the audience of a conference (he'd have been about 90), only to wake up for the questions and fire off some insights. So there is certainly some merit in the theory of a nexus between 'meaningful work' and living a lo…
The truth of the matter for most people though is that if they are unable to do meaningful (to them) work this leads to depression.
For the anecdote given by the author, the grandmother could perform meaningful work (counseling) still.