271–280 of 382 posts
What seems like common sense to us, may be a gap in the knowledge of someone else. When we help fill in those gaps, people will naturally help others when they see those gaps. When approached with love, curiosity and a seeking of understanding, we enable others to help themselves.
This is where great ideas scale quickly & naturally, because once we're aware of a better solution - why would you do it any other way?
>We’re pretty limited when it comes to care. In any given moment, you can only really care deeply and individually for one person. Absolutely. Society tends to assume that people are interchangeable units and that 'care' is a commodity which can be dispensed evenly as if from an industrial nozzle in a food factory. So we have 'care homes', 'daycare', 'care packages'. We are enjoined to be more 'caring'. But the reali…
The evidence very strongly points the other way, IMHO:
Almost all people care deeply and individually about many others, starting with their families - spouse and children are a clear and I think irrefutable example of deep caring and love for multiple people. And for most, also siblings, parents, grandparents, and some or even many other relatives.
And outside of family is friends, co-workers, etc. Many healthcare workers care deeply (depending on the meaning) about their patients. Fundamental human empathy enables us, if we choose, to see people as individuals and care about them, even people we meet briefly on the street. I've learned to do it and I'm not superhuman.
Obviously we know people experience these things. Why is it important - to what ideology and why - to insist empathy and love is so limited.
healthy society only work if most people are virtuous and take care of themselves and their families. The cost to care for the neglected and broken isn't sustainably if its more than a tiny percentage of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming all family influence is good. There are lots of abusive families and poor parents, though.
In general people take care of their kids. In general the family is good you can always find edge cases.
Our personal experiences could be very misleading about what others go through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re describing the extremes on a spectrum, but you only go to one of the extremes, which exposes your bias. And it’s a false dichotomy to begin with, since shifting more care work towards society doesn’t equate to a path toward totalitarianism. You’re conflating socialism with totalitarianism. Understandable, but misguided. Frankly, your whole premise is based on a capitalist narrative that keeps workers in their…
> shifting more care work towards society doesn’t equate to a path toward totalitarianism There are plenty of reasons to believe that yes, it does. This is something that is almost completely unknown (except on the extremes). And history has those two coupled in very complex, hard to understand ways.
Almost every developed country provides a lot of care via government.
“Care Doesn’t Scale” is a fractal type of truth which essentially describes life but also is a steadfast warning of the underlying state of healthcare in general. Holistic 100% care doesn’t exist - even for the rich. The only way to get optimal care is to pay for it with study. Even the richest in the world don’t necessarily get the best care because care is a function of the present life situation of the practitione…
Anyone who has scheduled 24x7 work knows that you need 4+ people:
24 hrs * 7 days/wk = 168 hrs/wk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expressed differently: they tried to abolish the family, found that doing so created more problems then they solved, and backed off in order to avoid tearing their country apart. They discovered that in some things doing nothing is better than doing something, but Westerners of all political stripes (both for or against authoritarianism) chronically make the mistake of assuming that everything that a totalitarian sta…
I don’t think they ever tried to “abolish family”. Where are you getting this stuff? It sounds like bad history lessons. They did stuff like legalizing divorce, or collectivization of parenting.
> One year after the Bolsheviks took power, they ratified the 1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship. The revolutionary jurists, led by Alexander Goikhbarg, adhered to the revolutionary principals of Marx, Engels, and Lenin when drafting the codes. Goikhbarg considered the nuclear family unit to be a necessary but transitive social arrangement that would quickly be phased out by the growing communal resources of the state and would eventually "wither away". The jurists intended for the code to provide a temporary legal framework to maintain protections for women and children until a system of total communal support could be established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming all family influence is good. There are lots of abusive families and poor parents, though.
He is (or perhaps he's ignoring that issue). But when a totalitarian government is abusive, it affects all the families, not just the bad ones.
Our principal exports, all labelled and packed,
At the ends of the earth are delivered intact:
Our soap or our salmon can travel in tins
Between the two poles and as like as two pins;
So that Lancashire merchants whenever they like
Can water the beer of a man in Klondike
Or poison the meat of a man in Bombay;
And that is the meaning of Empire Day.
I'm surprised the article and non of the comments I've seen in this thread mention effective altruism, which in the framing of the article is an attempt to scale caring in some sense. The article helped me realize why so many people in the startup/tech/software engineering scene are drawn to effective altruism, it's a way to scale helping humanity in the best way possible. The effective altruism argument is that it's…
Mosquito nets are oft being used as fishing nets. Since 1) the loopholes of malaria nets are much smaller than manually knotted ones (thus also killing baby fish) and 2) the impregnation chemicals kill riverbottom insects (thereby disrupting the foodchain), this has lead to a massive killing of fish. Instead of fixing malaria, this has instead led to aggrevated hunger crises in some places.