[deleted]
Life Is Short (2016)
111–120 of 310 posts
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or when they're hungry. Or over-stimulated, under-stimulated, tired, anxious over something that happened at school, hyped for the holiday season. Guilt-tripping someone who shares that they're not always having a good time as a parent is not cool. Your comment is over-generalizing, and IMO quite mean.
Yet there is a very large societal problem here worth pointing at. Parental time with children in this society is bizarrely low by anthropological standards. You can get a look at the stark difference by reading the book "The Old Way," about a nomadic society.
Traditional life involved kids being unsupervised at ages we find it unacceptable now (4 years old) and kids being in packed unsupervised for hours.
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universal Basic income would solve those problems. Eventually AI and automation should perform all the mundane jobs which is a good thing but we need to provide basic sustenance for everyone.
France has UBI in the form of “RSA” since 1981. It is proportional to the number of children, so you can live with children on it, and use the state-provided accomodations. For now it rather seems that it has created two sorts of populations: Those who live off it, and those who work, the two forever opposing each other, the latter literally enslaved by the masses of the former. The enslavement in a society which is…
France’s RSA does not meet UBI standards that we’re considering in the US / California because the amount paid is so small. If you live alone with 2 kids, RSA would be 899€/month in 2022, far below minimum wage.
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is valueable as the comments shows so easily how wrong religions get it, when many take religions as truths
That's a valid comment to make - religions do get things wrong, but GP is plain old "look how smart I am" strawmanning. It doesn't make the discourse more interesting or enlightening, and frankly doesn't belong on this site.
You deciding what belongs or does not belong here, what is allowed to be said or what is interesting or enlightening is the terror tactic almost all religions used to suppres people and ideas they do not like
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing what has changed is childhood mortality. If you take statistical lifetime of most animals (say frogs) and count in all offspring with hope to describe their average life duration then it would be low number of seconds. Human as such seems to have always same lifespan programmed in, just natural early mortality has been taken away. Basic statistical bias. Does almost removed early mortality really make…
This is not true. Humans died on injuries and sickness that are easily treatable now. They used to be more frequent and deadly. Humans got frequently born with disabilities because malnutrition in pregnancy (like a lack of iodine) that just don't happen anymore in West. There were whole classes of these issues that killed people and just don't exist anymore.
In the other hand they were not dying from technology induced accidents, like traffic :) Sure it is simplification, but the point is that statistical average life duration and total lifespan of adult person have quite weak correlations.
Actually even now these early years are most risky ones, just the scale is different. Now I have witnesses bias here also - in my 40ies I can expect to live 50 years more, very different from a newborn with immediate terminal condition. So lifespan does have different meaning for us.
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humanism fills that need. It doesn’t matter that it’s new, Islam and Christianity were new once, and corrupted since.
There's an argument to me made that the age/popularity of a belief system does correlate with validity, given that their individual memes are subject to Darwinism. Of course it's not everything, but I don't think humanism on its own would work without an older religion as its "bootstrap".
I don't consider myself a humanist, but I accept that my views are similar to them. I think humanism only exists because the way Christianity has been promoted recently forced the alternative to have a graspable answer rather than "I'm a good person for my own preference".
UsefulChart's video on humanism may help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWhz3SXPWkg
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#117This makes you think that Paul would be interested in fighting for a world where people don't waste most of their short lives in bullshit corporate jobs because the market demands it, and instead can focus on important things like their families.
Corporations typically provide actual value. Think machinery, chemicals, food production, etc.
It’s the bullshit software startup jobs that typically serve no purpose besides shuffling investor money from one place to another. Yes dear reader, that’s probably you.
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
If "Sky Daddy" is the literal creator of the Earth who gave direct commands to mankind, then that alone is a pretty valid reason. If he isn't, then he's a powerful (yet imaginary) social construct that has evolved over the past 4,000 years to encode the wisdom of many past generations through a set of rules and stories that happen to match up with the stories and rules of many other cultures. It's also an incredibly…
The claim of black or gay people beeing inferior had been there for more than 4000 years. Does that give any validity to you?
I'm not sure these views are as consistent as you say they are.
The Atlantic slave trade started in the 1500s and ended in the 1800s. Even then, it was controversial and faces opposition from certain Church groups (while getting support from others).
Vilification of gays based on Christian religious grounds apparently goes back to the 11th century (based on a quick read of Wikipedia, TBF), and is only starting to come undone now. I don't really have an answer for this, it was unfortunate.
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true. Humans died on injuries and sickness that are easily treatable now. They used to be more frequent and deadly. Humans got frequently born with disabilities because malnutrition in pregnancy (like a lack of iodine) that just don't happen anymore in West. There were whole classes of these issues that killed people and just don't exist anymore.
In the other hand they were not dying from technology induced accidents, like traffic :) Sure it is simplification, but the point is that statistical average life duration and total lifespan of adult person have quite weak correlations. Actually even now these early years are most risky ones, just the scale is different. Now I have witnesses bias here also - in my 40ies I can expect to live 50 years more, very differ…
It does not cancels out. It is not just simplification, you have to grossly overestimate traffic deaths now and underestimate accidental deaths in the past. (Basically regardless of when and where you place "the past".)
> Actually even now these early years are most risky ones, just the scale is different.
Babies mortality used to be huge too. And maternal mortality used to be huge by our standards too.
Re: Life Is Short (2016)
#120This makes you think that Paul would be interested in fighting for a world where people don't waste most of their short lives in bullshit corporate jobs because the market demands it, and instead can focus on important things like their families.
Funny enough, I know some engineers who go to work, non-remote, to escape from their wife and kids for a bit and work becomes an avenue to relax! And having to take care of an aging parent who lives with me, I can understand.
I was interviewing for a job in the middle and towards the end of 2020, and regardless of my chances of success or interest, I asked the interviewers how work from home had gone for them so far.
I encountered this sentiment most of all - 40 year old dads who were suddenly stuck at home with the wife and kids, working from an improvised home office.
When I asked about returning to the office, most of them were clearly looking forward to it, with a sentiment of "Of course working from home is less efficient and comfortable, what do you mean?".
It was quite a surprise for me, who had finally gotten away from the noisy open-plan offices and meetings where everyone shouted at each other until the loudest person "won".