6 ms·

So you would sacrifice antibiotics, advanced cancer treatment, air travel, the internet, telephones, etc. to have more free time to talk to your friends, read,

So you would sacrifice antibiotics, advanced cancer treatment, air travel, the internet, telephones, etc. to have more free time to talk to your friends, read, and think? I wouldn't.

zimablue 9y ago
Those were just examples, in reality it's more free time to do absolutely anything. If you take the health side, I think Rockefeller would have had a higher life expectancy than me. I could be wrong but if you account for the higher life expectancy of the rich and the detrimental effects of stress, I think it would be close. But say he had a five year shorter expectancy, well if you say that time working a job is worth 50% of normal time (and also consider that most people would value 20-40 more than 60-80. Then he has an effective life expectancy decades longer. Screw the internet, phones and flights I'll trade for a grand tour, a private theatre, my own university, a private harem. If I'm lucky I'll get ten years to be completely free, in the other case I get 70 (?).
smallnamespace 9y ago
Not to be overly reductionist, but from an evolutionary perspective isn't one of the most important things the survival of your own genes? Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they might also be in a position to have children if they desire) is much higher than it was in the past (hence the sharply declining birthrates in all modern nations). You have outwardly modern, prosperous nations like Japan going through slow demographic implosions. If things are so great, why doesn't society want to, or manage to reproduce itself in the aggregate? Are modern conveniences, travel, time to read, travel, etc., the ends in and of themselves, or are they just supposed to be the means to the only goal that nature cares about in the long term, which the survival and propagation of parts of our ourselves? Not of the individual, since that will always perish, but our genes, our thoughts, our values and cultures?
- djrogers 9y ago
  > Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they might also be in a position to have children if they desire) is much higher than it was in the past (hence the sharply declining birthrates in all modern nations). No, not at all. Sociologists do not at all believe that declining birth rates are because its harder to raise kids. It’s never been easier! Healthcare in most of the developed world is taken care of for the majority of people, basic education is free, and food is so cheap and abundant you’d have to actively try to raise a malnourished child today. The idea that delivering and raising a child was easier or cheaper 100,200, or 500 years ago is ludicrous.
  - Someone 9y ago
    Even more so for women, especially regarding the “delivering” part. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbirth/ http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbir...: ”Pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous times in a woman's life, and most women wrote their wills once they knew they were pregnant”
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      Is it possible that human psychology and culture evolved in a world with difficult conscious control over reproduction, and while we have moved to a world where conscious control is relatively cheap and easy, our instincts and practices haven't adjusted yet to optimize reproductive fitness?
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    Yet if that is the case, why do fewer and fewer people choose to raise families? Could it be that people perceive that status goods, like living in a good neighborhood, being able to send children to good schools, are just as important as supplying material needs, and no amount of economic growth will directly deliver relative social status, which is inherently zero sum?
bambax 9y ago
I would totally sacrifice air travel, the Internet, telephones (I would gladly give up telephones with zero compensation) to have more free time and an infinite number of people to attend to my every need. If you have all the time in the world why would you need air travel? You can charter your own boat and travel in style with interesting friends with whom to have interesting conversations, while staring at the sea. That beats sitting in a cramped seat next to a big man and a crying baby, anytime. Pain relief, anesthesia and modern dentistry, may be more difficult to renounce.

So you would sacrifice antibiotics, advanced cancer treatment, air travel, the internet, telephones, etc. to have more free time to talk to your friends, read, and think? I wouldn't.

zimablue 9y ago

Those were just examples, in reality it's more free time to do absolutely anything. If you take the health side, I think Rockefeller would have had a higher life expectancy than me. I could be wrong but if you account for the higher life expectancy of the rich and the detrimental effects of stress, I think it would be close. But say he had a five year shorter expectancy, well if you say that time working a job is worth 50% of normal time (and also consider that most people would value 20-40 more than 60-80. Then he has an effective life expectancy decades longer. Screw the internet, phones and flights I'll trade for a grand tour, a private theatre, my own university, a private harem. If I'm lucky I'll get ten years to be completely free, in the other case I get 70 (?).

smallnamespace 9y ago

Not to be overly reductionist, but from an evolutionary perspective isn't one of the most important things the survival of your own genes? Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they might also be in a position to have children if they desire) is much higher than it was in the past (hence the sharply declining birthrates in all modern nations). You have outwardly modern, prosperous nations like Japan going through slow demographic implosions. If things are so great, why doesn't society want to, or manage to reproduce itself in the aggregate? Are modern conveniences, travel, time to read, travel, etc., the ends in and of themselves, or are they just supposed to be the means to the only goal that nature cares about in the long term, which the survival and propagation of parts of our ourselves? Not of the individual, since that will always perish, but our genes, our thoughts, our values and cultures?

djrogers 9y ago
> Seems especially in modern societies the actual cost, effort required, and difficulty of finding a mate and raising children responsibly (e.g. so that they might also be in a position to have children if they desire) is much higher than it was in the past (hence the sharply declining birthrates in all modern nations). No, not at all. Sociologists do not at all believe that declining birth rates are because its harder to raise kids. It’s never been easier! Healthcare in most of the developed world is taken care of for the majority of people, basic education is free, and food is so cheap and abundant you’d have to actively try to raise a malnourished child today. The idea that delivering and raising a child was easier or cheaper 100,200, or 500 years ago is ludicrous.
- Someone 9y ago
  Even more so for women, especially regarding the “delivering” part. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbirth/ http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/r/renaissance-childbir...: ”Pregnancy and childbirth were dangerous times in a woman's life, and most women wrote their wills once they knew they were pregnant”
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    Is it possible that human psychology and culture evolved in a world with difficult conscious control over reproduction, and while we have moved to a world where conscious control is relatively cheap and easy, our instincts and practices haven't adjusted yet to optimize reproductive fitness?
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  Yet if that is the case, why do fewer and fewer people choose to raise families? Could it be that people perceive that status goods, like living in a good neighborhood, being able to send children to good schools, are just as important as supplying material needs, and no amount of economic growth will directly deliver relative social status, which is inherently zero sum?

bambax 9y ago

I would totally sacrifice air travel, the Internet, telephones (I would gladly give up telephones with zero compensation) to have more free time and an infinite number of people to attend to my every need. If you have all the time in the world why would you need air travel? You can charter your own boat and travel in style with interesting friends with whom to have interesting conversations, while staring at the sea. That beats sitting in a cramped seat next to a big man and a crying baby, anytime. Pain relief, anesthesia and modern dentistry, may be more difficult to renounce.