Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#261

Post by tommis » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:11 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #76

bryanlarsen wrote: post #70

The first thing that I noticed about the box is that all the baby clothes are sex-neutral. Here in North America it's almost impossible to find baby clothes that don't immediately scream "I'm a boy" or "I'm a girl".

To my understanding, parents in Finland don't normally know the biological sex of the child before birth. If the box is given before the actually birth, then it makes sense to make the colors gender neutral.

During the prenatal checkups here in Finland, they also do ultrasounds (2-3 times if I remember correctly) and they will ask you if you want to know.

The box contents is neutral mainly for logistical purposes. It's cheaper to have all the boxes with same content than to carry two lines of blue and pink boxes :)

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#262

Post by oblique63 » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:13 AM UTC

clicks wrote: post #260

andrewflnr wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that using the word "coercion" is repugnant, and then quote a definition that perfectly fits taxation? You've got some nerve. You can see it however you want, but if you don't pay taxes, someone will come and physically haul you off to jail whether you like it or not, someone who is prepared to escalate to deadly force. Sure sounds like coercion to me. Taxation might make sense as an "entrance fee" if someone…

It is a curious thing that you object to this. Are you not also being coerced to conform to virtually every other societal norm? Try walking out naked down the street in broad daylight. See if you're not jumped by the police. Try hunting some deer in the non-hunting season for food, -- because afterall you're hungry and the meat would do: you'll meet the heavy side of law. You're seeing things from a libertarian-lens…

Thank you for saying this. It really bothers me how arguments are reduced to meaningless 'facts' around here so quickly, when the real world is a lot more nuanced than that. A 'fact' without context is effectively meaningless (i.e. saying "the sky is blue" would be useless if we had no concept of a "sky"). The simple fact that "coercion" is defined in such a way that aligns with the way taxation is implemented is about as useful as one of those "fun facts" you see under snapple caps. Yeah, that's nice coincidence, but it's really only notable when you look at it for what it is: a relation between a word definition and a system implementation. In other words, the connotation of the word and the context of the system implementation are not necessarily guaranteed to be congruent, as there are many paths that lead to the same destination. And as you clearly stated, taxation is just a special case of the more general practice of governance through law enforcement. And while a lot of people here like to see 'law' as equal to 'right-ness', it too is not necessarily congruent but rather a close approximation (much the same way that I.Q. scores are a rough approximation of 'intelligence' -- another relatively 'vague' concept). What's funny, is that this incongruence makes itself pretty clear whenever drug laws are brought up. Several clamor to "legalize", yet many of the same people then go on use law/law-enforcement as an accurate metric for 'right-ness' in argumentation. The thing is that law is a pretty good metric for what society deems to be right in general for practical usage in implementing guidelines, but the system behind it is never going to be responsive/fast/informed enough to represent a useful snapshot of societal values that can then be used for argumentation[1]. If culture/society were generally static then that would be fine, but this big mess of dynamic interactions is much too complicated, so we just resort to using simple arbitrary factoids to end discussions.

[1] Not to mention that a government's body of law as a whole is not generated by a fixed algorithm; different laws arise from different needs/contexts/scenarios, and not understanding what context brought about any specific policy, yet still using it in argumentation, is essentially a strawman.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#263

Post by tommis » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:25 AM UTC

xmr wrote: post #41

Is it possible to buy these and get them shipped outside of Finland?

Unfortunately you can't, but you should be able to buy most of the items off the shelf in Finland (except the original cardboard box).

This page displays the contents of this years box with the contents:

http://www.kela.fi/aitiyspakkaus

Here's an infomercial demoing the contents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVPw2_A9V5Y

Lot of the clothes are from finnish company Reima, which have an online shop:

http://www.reimashop.fi/

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#264

Post by res0nat0r » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 4:38 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #247

CaptainZapp wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…

"Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force," I don't see taxes (and I pay a fairly significant share) as our evil government squeezing out our hard earned cash by threatening, or intimidating us. And what if you decide that you have a better idea of how to…

I guess it is not coercion due to the fact that no one is preventing you by force from packing your bags and leaving the USA.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#265

Post by Orva » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 5:04 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #128

arethuza wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One question I find interesting is to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values. Personally, I'm all for it - but that's a product of my age (40s), location (Scotland) and where I grew up (a small village in the North of Scotland). NB Having a father who served in the RAF during WW2 probably influenced me far more than I realised at the time - my political views around…

I think building solidarity and values is tremendously important, and here's why: what is the government really responsible for? Even as you go down the political spectrum to libertarians (short of anarcho-libertarians), you have consensus that government should at least provide security, from domestic crime and international threats, the enforcement of contracts, etc. Most people would go on to say that it's the gov…

> .. you can't ignore the impact of the tremendously acrimonious culture we have, steeped in animosity between the races and between different socioeconomic classes.

That is actually symptom of the problem, not the cause. It's not too long time ago when Finland had one of the bloodiest civil wars in European history[1], but still country was made enough unified to survive during WW2[2][3] and of course build 'nanny state' we have today.

Only reason that was possible was that big differences between classes was seemed as primary problem, caused by the system, instead of thinking it was caused by external forces which cannot really be affected. Maybe biggest success in this front was to ban private schools for kids and provide good basic education for everyone. Take note that all of the kids went to same schools, so kids from both factions of civil war shared classrooms, meals, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#266

Post by zurn » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 6:20 AM UTC

uiwntelnz wrote: post #115

Along with this, does anyone know if Finland provides coffins for their recently deceased?

And do they get shipped to you shortly before you die?

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#267

Post by pkulak » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 6:35 AM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #163

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #74

Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system;…

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

No, the reason it will never happen is because every single interest that sells any baby anything will oppose it (unless they are written into the bill to sell to the government at 110% retail). Even if 99% of the population wants it, Target gets a veto. That's why all these great programs that anyone mentions have started 50+ years ago; back when something could get done even if you could find one large corporation that it wasn't in the best interests of.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#268

Post by duairc » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 7:41 AM UTC

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #74

Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system;…

It's not really in the interests of the ruling class to build genuine solidarity and shared values. Divide and rule.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#269

Post by nl » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 8:55 AM UTC

euroclydon wrote: post #178

rayiner wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think building solidarity and values is tremendously important, and here's why: what is the government really responsible for? Even as you go down the political spectrum to libertarians (short of anarcho-libertarians), you have consensus that government should at least provide security, from domestic crime and international threats, the enforcement of contracts, etc. Most people would go on to say that it's the gov…

I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the g…

If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right.

You seem to be writing from an exclusively US point of view. In much of the world governments don't act like that at all (think of France, with their agenda of protecting the French language).

Looking from outside at the US it seems to me that the overt patriotism that is almost uniquely widespread in the US is a shared value promoted by the government.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#270

Post by skreech » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 10:24 AM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #237

skreech wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To prevent parents from aborting children of the "wrong" gender. It has sadly happened, apparently.

By the time you can tell, you can't have a legal abortion. Black market ultrasound is probably not the limiting factor in illegal abortions in Sweden or Finland.

They can't really tell with 100 % accuracy until birth, but by week 18 they can tell with a very high level of accuracy. And Sweden permits abortions until the end of week 18.