3 ms·

These are chemistry sets. They are, when used inappropriately, just as likely to cause harm as a sawzall, a hammer, or a cuisinart. I assure you, the "aristocr

These are chemistry sets. They are, when used inappropriately, just as likely to cause harm as a sawzall, a hammer, or a cuisinart. I assure you, the "aristocratic heir majority owners" are also interested in letting their kids have access to experimental chemistry; and lawyers depriving any child of the opportunity to experience such (or to learn how to use a hammer, a sawzall, or a cuisinart for that matter) does no one any good, least of all working people.

crooked-v 5y ago
I feel like you've actually kind of proven the reasonability of what actually happened to chemistry sets with this comparison. Fully-functional sawzalls, hammers, and Cuisinarts don't get actively marketed to children. You can buy them and let children use them, just as you can with (non-children-marketed) chemistry supplies, and in the same way that comes with the societal understanding that, by letting a child use something not marketed for use by children, you'll be providing suitable safety instruction and oversight yourself.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  Yeah, this is a pretty good explanation, chemistry sets may be nerfed because the risk of giving poisons and invisible flames to children as toys far outweighs the benefits which accrue to a small minority who would gain from this. And the children who would gain from it have other ways to access bomb-making or nuclear-reactor making materials if they really want to: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nuclear-reactor-fusion-science-kid-ngbooktalk https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nu... That all seems to be corroborated by the fact there doesn't seem to be any shortage of scientifically gifted young adults. If anything we're on a golden age of scientific discovery. Teenagers fairly regularly make contributions to science, and chemistry in particular. It doesn't look as though there is some broad over-protective social force holding children back from developing adult skills and that this whole thing is much more likely to be a subjective impression of the author. From a quick google: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-promising-scientists-under-20 https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-... https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-discoveries-that-teenagers-shook-the-world-with-at-the-google-and-intel-science-fairs-717710/ https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-disco... Of course, there are still the old-fashioned forces of parental and social neglect, and the fact that opportunities and neglect are not evenly distributed throughout the society (being much more dispersed/concentrated, respectively in poor households). But the author does not seem interested in that. One can only speculate as to why.

crooked-v 5y ago

I feel like you've actually kind of proven the reasonability of what actually happened to chemistry sets with this comparison. Fully-functional sawzalls, hammers, and Cuisinarts don't get actively marketed to children. You can buy them and let children use them, just as you can with (non-children-marketed) chemistry supplies, and in the same way that comes with the societal understanding that, by letting a child use something not marketed for use by children, you'll be providing suitable safety instruction and oversight yourself.

scaramanga 5y ago
Yeah, this is a pretty good explanation, chemistry sets may be nerfed because the risk of giving poisons and invisible flames to children as toys far outweighs the benefits which accrue to a small minority who would gain from this. And the children who would gain from it have other ways to access bomb-making or nuclear-reactor making materials if they really want to: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nuclear-reactor-fusion-science-kid-ngbooktalk https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/150726-nu... That all seems to be corroborated by the fact there doesn't seem to be any shortage of scientifically gifted young adults. If anything we're on a golden age of scientific discovery. Teenagers fairly regularly make contributions to science, and chemistry in particular. It doesn't look as though there is some broad over-protective social force holding children back from developing adult skills and that this whole thing is much more likely to be a subjective impression of the author. From a quick google: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-promising-scientists-under-20 https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/teen-genius-5-... https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-discoveries-that-teenagers-shook-the-world-with-at-the-google-and-intel-science-fairs-717710/ https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/6-sensational-disco... Of course, there are still the old-fashioned forces of parental and social neglect, and the fact that opportunities and neglect are not evenly distributed throughout the society (being much more dispersed/concentrated, respectively in poor households). But the author does not seem interested in that. One can only speculate as to why.