6 ms·

What's stopping you from going full Siddhartha, selling your house/earthly possessions, and giving the wad to the first homeless person you see on your way out

What's stopping you from going full Siddhartha, selling your house/earthly possessions, and giving the wad to the first homeless person you see on your way out of town to live your best ascetic life? Caring for and providing as much of an advantage to your kids as one is able is a basic human (one could even argue 'mammalian') behavior. I'm disappointed that the narrative is trying to label such hard-coded behavior as everything from 'evil' to 'frowned upon'.

cf498 8y ago
Its only reasonable that individuals do it but it isnt healthy for society as a whole, as it leads to an entrenched class system.
FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Something that is good for the individual is not necessarily good for society. Such as wealth-based admission to college, which is good for the wealthy but terrible for society.
Err_Eek 8y ago
It is normal behavior, everyone does it. But as that passed down wealth becomes more and more essential for a good life, society at large should stop pushing the myth that it is largely meritocratic, especially as lines between social classes become more rigid by the day.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> "I'm disappointed that the narrative is trying to label such hard-coded behavior as everything from 'evil' to 'frowned upon'." The problem isn't so much that it is frowned up or declared evil, but it's that we have somehow built the worst of both worlds: we are most definitely not a "privilege-free" meritocracy, but we like to pretend that we are. The British aristocracy gave their kids all the advantages they could, too, but at least everyone knew that system was unfair and the concept of "noblesse oblige" came out of that knowledge. We've replaced noblesse oblige with "I got all my success through my own brilliance so screw your lazy ass." I'm not suggesting we return to an aristocratic system, but I am suggesting we fully acknowledge the role of unfair advantage, and luck, in anyone's success, in addition to their own skill and hard work. One of the things I found most interesting about the current scandal is that one of the parents paid over a million dollars to commit this fraud. With numbers that big you have to wonder why they just didn't give a donation that large - probably would have had a similar effect. I think one main reason is that a donation would make everyone say "Oh, well your kid got in because of your huge donation." (See Jared Kushner). Committing the fraud allows the fiction that it was just skill and hard work that was the reason for the acceptance to continue.
- titanomachy 8y ago
  Did noblesse oblige ever really do any good for the lower classes?
- stickfigure 8y ago
  I think you have an overly rosy view of the aristocracy of old. That social institution involved a hereditary monarchy, and you don't have to go very far back before the term divine right was being thrown around. Talk about entitlement... If you go back in history, I believe you'll find that most socially advantaged people simply thought they were inherently better than others. "I worked harder", whether true or not, is a better narrative.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    If you go back in history, I believe you'll find that most socially advantaged people simply thought they were inherently better than others. That's true now, is it not? It's certainly a common view. People who are rich deserve it; they are more deserving. They're better people. They must be, because how else would they be rich? In the US meritocracy (and indeed, many others), anyone who has done well must have done it through merit because that's how the system works, so they must be a better person.
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      My understanding is that a few hundred years ago most wealth was inherited land. Aristocracy was something you were born into. I'd love to see some statistics, but I believe the percentage of "self-made" people is much higher today. Modern society may have its flaws, but I do think this particular historical trend is positive.
      - EliRivers 8y ago
        Although the trend is now heading back towards that (in some places, including the US and the UK); the wealth of your parents is a stronger indicator of future success than it was fifty years ago.
rixed 8y ago
Hardcoded behaviours that successfully allowed small clans to thrive are not necessarily the best use of resources in large scale societies.
morsch 8y ago
I don't think the parents are evil. But nepotism isn't a desirable attribute for society. It doesn't award innovation and fosters dissatisfaction. It's self reinforcing, which is always a dangerous attribute. As with other antisocial trends, we just need to implement strategies to counter it. This is already something we do -- eg. scholarships --, so while it might sound harsh, it isn't particularly controversial. We probably need to intensify our efforts.
soVeryTired 8y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to act in your best interest within the rules set out by the system, while simultaneously recognising that the system is unfair and wanting to change it. As the kids these days say, "don't hate the player, hate the game".
ionised 8y ago
There is plenty of human or mammalian behaviour that we don't view as axiomatic virtues in the way you do, and take steps to curb or change them. This is one we can and should change.
- lwhalen 8y ago
  Citation needed. We are monkeys with drugs and guns. Any attempt to deny that basic premise is doomed to failure.
  - ionised 8y ago
    We deny that basic premise every day by building and maintaining a civilisation.
    - lwhalen 8y ago
      Groundhogs, dolphins, whales, monkeys (other 'great primates'), etc, all have a regular social order with shared/close living quarters. Just because they don't have specious (pun intended) arguments with strangers over an electronic communications network doesn't mean they aren't some value of 'civilized'.
kop316 8y ago
I wanted to respond to this because I feel that a lot of reply's are black and white when the real scale is very much a shade of grey. I agree with you that providing with your kids is a basic human behavior. My fiancés parents fled their country to come to the USA to give themselves and their kids a better live. A lot of people work hard because they want to provide that for their family. I think that is productive and great. But there is the opposite side of it shown here. People abuse their power and wealth to provide a very clearly unfair advantage. And to make it worse, a lot of society rewards it. I have been in conversations where company X only hires from Ivy Leagues and 4.0 GPAs, and there is a very perceived notion that having such an education will get you places you can't otherwise do it. One of the brightest and best coworkers I worked with had an average GPA from a state school (he was from that state), and was rejected by several employers. Personally, I look for the ~3.0 GPA student who worked through college, or can show more than just school and a 4.0 GPA. I know that student worked hard to get where they are, and that they have hit their heads against the wall to figure out something.
pesmhey 8y ago
Social cohesion is also a basic mammalian and human behavior. Power disparities make it really hard to trust people.
collyw 8y ago
A friend was discussing that inheritance is the root of a good deal of inequality in the world - and I agreed. But if the alternative is giving it to a corrupt government to redistribute your wealth, then I still prefer to give it to family. And I say that as someone who doens't plan to have children.
cbsks 8y ago
I would do that... but I like my house and my stuff. Plus, my wife wouldn't approve. I am not saying that it is 'evil' but it does contribute to the wealth gap in our society. I definitely don't want it to go away, I want my children to get the same benefits that I had! I guess my point is that the entire system is rigged and because so many people have benefited from it, including me, it's not going to be fixed anytime soon. It's important to recognize the ways in which the system is rigged so that we can level the playing field where we can.

cf498 8y ago

Its only reasonable that individuals do it but it isnt healthy for society as a whole, as it leads to an entrenched class system.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

Something that is good for the individual is not necessarily good for society. Such as wealth-based admission to college, which is good for the wealthy but terrible for society.

Err_Eek 8y ago

It is normal behavior, everyone does it. But as that passed down wealth becomes more and more essential for a good life, society at large should stop pushing the myth that it is largely meritocratic, especially as lines between social classes become more rigid by the day.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

> "I'm disappointed that the narrative is trying to label such hard-coded behavior as everything from 'evil' to 'frowned upon'." The problem isn't so much that it is frowned up or declared evil, but it's that we have somehow built the worst of both worlds: we are most definitely not a "privilege-free" meritocracy, but we like to pretend that we are. The British aristocracy gave their kids all the advantages they could, too, but at least everyone knew that system was unfair and the concept of "noblesse oblige" came out of that knowledge. We've replaced noblesse oblige with "I got all my success through my own brilliance so screw your lazy ass." I'm not suggesting we return to an aristocratic system, but I am suggesting we fully acknowledge the role of unfair advantage, and luck, in anyone's success, in addition to their own skill and hard work. One of the things I found most interesting about the current scandal is that one of the parents paid over a million dollars to commit this fraud. With numbers that big you have to wonder why they just didn't give a donation that large - probably would have had a similar effect. I think one main reason is that a donation would make everyone say "Oh, well your kid got in because of your huge donation." (See Jared Kushner). Committing the fraud allows the fiction that it was just skill and hard work that was the reason for the acceptance to continue.

titanomachy 8y ago
Did noblesse oblige ever really do any good for the lower classes?
stickfigure 8y ago
I think you have an overly rosy view of the aristocracy of old. That social institution involved a hereditary monarchy, and you don't have to go very far back before the term divine right was being thrown around. Talk about entitlement... If you go back in history, I believe you'll find that most socially advantaged people simply thought they were inherently better than others. "I worked harder", whether true or not, is a better narrative.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  If you go back in history, I believe you'll find that most socially advantaged people simply thought they were inherently better than others. That's true now, is it not? It's certainly a common view. People who are rich deserve it; they are more deserving. They're better people. They must be, because how else would they be rich? In the US meritocracy (and indeed, many others), anyone who has done well must have done it through merit because that's how the system works, so they must be a better person.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    My understanding is that a few hundred years ago most wealth was inherited land. Aristocracy was something you were born into. I'd love to see some statistics, but I believe the percentage of "self-made" people is much higher today. Modern society may have its flaws, but I do think this particular historical trend is positive.
    - EliRivers 8y ago
      Although the trend is now heading back towards that (in some places, including the US and the UK); the wealth of your parents is a stronger indicator of future success than it was fifty years ago.

rixed 8y ago

Hardcoded behaviours that successfully allowed small clans to thrive are not necessarily the best use of resources in large scale societies.

morsch 8y ago

I don't think the parents are evil. But nepotism isn't a desirable attribute for society. It doesn't award innovation and fosters dissatisfaction. It's self reinforcing, which is always a dangerous attribute. As with other antisocial trends, we just need to implement strategies to counter it. This is already something we do -- eg. scholarships --, so while it might sound harsh, it isn't particularly controversial. We probably need to intensify our efforts.

soVeryTired 8y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable to act in your best interest within the rules set out by the system, while simultaneously recognising that the system is unfair and wanting to change it. As the kids these days say, "don't hate the player, hate the game".

ionised 8y ago

There is plenty of human or mammalian behaviour that we don't view as axiomatic virtues in the way you do, and take steps to curb or change them. This is one we can and should change.

lwhalen 8y ago
Citation needed. We are monkeys with drugs and guns. Any attempt to deny that basic premise is doomed to failure.
- ionised 8y ago
  We deny that basic premise every day by building and maintaining a civilisation.
  - lwhalen 8y ago
    Groundhogs, dolphins, whales, monkeys (other 'great primates'), etc, all have a regular social order with shared/close living quarters. Just because they don't have specious (pun intended) arguments with strangers over an electronic communications network doesn't mean they aren't some value of 'civilized'.

kop316 8y ago

I wanted to respond to this because I feel that a lot of reply's are black and white when the real scale is very much a shade of grey. I agree with you that providing with your kids is a basic human behavior. My fiancés parents fled their country to come to the USA to give themselves and their kids a better live. A lot of people work hard because they want to provide that for their family. I think that is productive and great. But there is the opposite side of it shown here. People abuse their power and wealth to provide a very clearly unfair advantage. And to make it worse, a lot of society rewards it. I have been in conversations where company X only hires from Ivy Leagues and 4.0 GPAs, and there is a very perceived notion that having such an education will get you places you can't otherwise do it. One of the brightest and best coworkers I worked with had an average GPA from a state school (he was from that state), and was rejected by several employers. Personally, I look for the ~3.0 GPA student who worked through college, or can show more than just school and a 4.0 GPA. I know that student worked hard to get where they are, and that they have hit their heads against the wall to figure out something.

pesmhey 8y ago

Social cohesion is also a basic mammalian and human behavior. Power disparities make it really hard to trust people.

collyw 8y ago

A friend was discussing that inheritance is the root of a good deal of inequality in the world - and I agreed. But if the alternative is giving it to a corrupt government to redistribute your wealth, then I still prefer to give it to family. And I say that as someone who doens't plan to have children.

cbsks 8y ago

I would do that... but I like my house and my stuff. Plus, my wife wouldn't approve. I am not saying that it is 'evil' but it does contribute to the wealth gap in our society. I definitely don't want it to go away, I want my children to get the same benefits that I had! I guess my point is that the entire system is rigged and because so many people have benefited from it, including me, it's not going to be fixed anytime soon. It's important to recognize the ways in which the system is rigged so that we can level the playing field where we can.