331–340 of 443 posts
Architects needn't be diminished by CAD. Teachers needn't be diminished by internet access / computers. Nurses/Doctors needn't be diminished by new detection techniques or medicines.
No matter the era, we should carry the identity that we're not the tools we use, we're more than that.
Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury. If a person can't provide for themselves the rest goes out the window fast. The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves. The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, growing your own food is incredibly inefficient. Agriculture is one of the places where economies of scale shine very very brightly.
> To be fair, growing your own food is incredibly inefficient Life is not an optimization problem.
We're currently in the process of designing and building machines that can do everything better, faster and cheaper than humans. Gradually, we are succeeding. This leaves us with two options: a) Decouple the value of human life from economic output b) Watch as the value of human life rapidly approaches zero
The focus on "what you do" is very US-centric (or possibly North American). When you meet someone then one of the very first things asked is "what do you do" or something to that extent. What your job is. But it's not like that at all elsewhere in the world. It varies a lot. I myself never ask that question, unless it's for a very specific reason. And _never_ as part of an introduction. I've known people for decades…
Can you share some area(s) it's not like that, and what kinds of introductions/opening conversations you do have? I'd like to replicate that into my own social life (in North America) if only to bend the arc ever so slightly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them. That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior. Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"? [1] I imagine OP has never given birth
Just going to poke you a little for the statement about not having children ;). It strikes me as a little elitist and I'll tell you why: You don't need to have had children to have loved people and to have lost people, and to fully understand the depth and weight of those things.
I was only commenting on the "easily produced" comment. I don't think I've heard someone describe pregnancy and childbirth that way ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them. That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior. Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"? [1] I imagine OP has never given birth
Just going to poke you a little for the statement about not having children ;). It strikes me as a little elitist and I'll tell you why: You don't need to have had children to have loved people and to have lost people, and to fully understand the depth and weight of those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment defines value as what people pay for things, then comes to the conclusion that they way to value people must be based on what people will pay for them. That's not insightful, that's just circular reasoning, and it fails to explain normal human behavior. Does a child have no value to it's parents because it's "easily produced"[1] and "disposable and replaceable"? [1] I imagine OP has never given birth
> and it fails to explain normal human behavior. ...which is what exactly? My best guess is that you're implying "normal human behavior" is unconditional love and support? That's an idealistic view that doesn't hold true for everyone (even in the first world) as GP pointed out. I think this idealistic type of mindset, which seems to be a collective agreement to blow smoke up each other's asses, has done a lot more ha…
Why play piano at home when you could use that energy to work? Why go to the bar and pay more for a drink than you would at home?
Because of this, equating all human value to monetary value doesn't accurately reflect the world.
Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury. If a person can't provide for themselves the rest goes out the window fast. The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves. The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we…