51–60 of 205 posts
If there was in fact a safe pathway to only needing 2 hours of sleep I would 100% use it and consider it a zero to one innovation. Although I think it would also come with a lot of pushback. One of my favourite questions to ask people is "if there was a way that allowed you to not sleep and be completely fine, would you take it?". Surprisingly (or maybe not) most people will answer no and say they like sleep to much.…
Next solve going to the toilet and we're all set.
If there was in fact a safe pathway to only needing 2 hours of sleep I would 100% use it and consider it a zero to one innovation. Although I think it would also come with a lot of pushback. One of my favourite questions to ask people is "if there was a way that allowed you to not sleep and be completely fine, would you take it?". Surprisingly (or maybe not) most people will answer no and say they like sleep to much.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Productivity is irrelevant: when you have young children, any given amount of time where you can be awake and functional is incredibly valuable - particularly if it works outside the hours your children sleep. Like I'll settle for "tired but no accruing sleep debt".
Are we assuming then that you're not treating the children? Because otherwise they just sleep less as well and now you're back to square one. I suppose you can full dystopia it, go the other way, make them need 12-16 hours a sleep a day whilst you only need 4 ;)
Also, whoever came up with the idea of nap hour in kindergartens has a special circle of hell reserved for them.
If we were able to be awake 20 hours a day we may still be miserable because of factors like the sun being down for ane even longer time while we’re awake.
I feel like this is one of those inane pursuits for productivity where that doesn’t fit at all, at least not for the thinking jobs. Maybe in a dystopia big companies like amazon would use inventions like this to be able to let their employees work 20 hour work days or something.
Of course this shouldn’t discredit the linked article of being interesting or anything, just sharing my thoughts on the endless pursuit of productivity.
Wonder if we could engineer multiple sleep intervals through out the single day (e.g. power napping, siesta's). There is plenty of dead time for me during the day that could be swapped out for sleep.. the question is at what cost to the body & mind?
Just a thought.
Why is it not a survival advantage? Probably because we didn't work 18 hour days, the extra wakeness would just be used for rest. Night shifts that anyone can do are still needed if you need tribal watchers, and normal 8hr sleeping people can wake upnand fight when needed. In terms of the gene, I am suprised how rare it is (90 families?) given I have met someone who needs only 4hr sleep. Another point is less sleep d…
> Why is it not a survival advantage? Because you're more likely to hurt yourself while doing anything in the dark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yah, but if you needed 2 hours less of sleep, there'd still be myriad advantages. Times when it's not possible to get enough sleep: you'd be less sleep-deprived. And, if it's truly without negative side effects: maybe you get 20 minutes more useful time per day and increase your ratio of conscious relaxation to useful time. I'd call that a pretty big win.
It's interesting but I feel as if the discussion is a bit flawed because it feels very binary, i.e. sleep 8 hours = have 16 hours non sleep, sleep 6 hours = have 18 hours non sleep, and we assume that each hour is the same regardless, but it won't be. It feels a bit like - well could I engineer myself to require 1500 calories a day instead of 2000. Maybe. But as a result there would definitely be some downside, maybe…