4 ms·

I agree about the criticism against long working hours, but it's unfortunate I think to use the nuclear family as an example of another superior example here, t

by jseban 4y ago

I agree about the criticism against long working hours, but it's unfortunate I think to use the nuclear family as an example of another superior example here, to shove people further into another old fashioned failing arbitrary power structure comes a bit short as a vision of a better alternative.

barrysteve 4y ago
What's arbitrary about a family? It's changed in size over the history of homo sapiens, but it has always existed and is pretty obviously a biological necessity and unavoidable natural law for us. The arguments against it are entirely abstract and ungrounded.
- jseban 4y ago
  You assign an enormous amount of special status to certain people who you happen to be related to by blood, and that's arbitrary. It works when it works, and it doesn't work when it doesn't. What natural law says it's better to spend time with/live only with people who are related to by blood? The only necessity for reproduction is sexual intercourse. A family is susceptible to the same abuse and corruption as any other arbitrary power structure. The arguments against it are the divorce rates, and they are not abstract or ungrounded.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Divorces are between people not related by blood (usually). The reason you provide resources to blood relatives (kids) is to give your genes the best chance to survive.
    - jseban 4y ago
      What if a person not related by blood will give your kids better chances? What says that the parent will necessarily be the "best" person for their child through their whole life, and not someone else? That's arbitrary. You see no issues with swearing life long loyalty to blood relations? That's just going to be the optimal solution in every case? That's making it a little bit too easy don't you think?
      - thebean11 4y ago
        Are you arguing that there's zero biological programming specific to children or blood relatives?
        jseban 4y ago
        No, but I'm arguing that it's very unreliable, often fully backfires and becomes actually destructive, and that in our modern society there are other factors that are much more relevant to people's success in life, and blood relations I would say is fully arbitrary. It's also just as natural for people to branch out and leave their families, as it is to stay close to their families. And I think it's irrelevant to the discussion of shortening working hours, and a bad example because it's another oppressive construct. It's like arguing for shortening working hours so that people can go to church more, and church is healthy. Really? That's highly debatable, and obviously another power structure which is also old fashioned and has seen decreasing success. How about just shortening the working hours so that people can be more, free? And do what they want?
        barrysteve 4y ago
        > so that people can go to church more, and church is healthy. Really? That's highly debatable, and obviously another power structure which is also old fashioned This one is so debatable because the definition and theological implications of Church 'healthiness' depend upon many different variables and can differ subtly across all Churches. Church isn't a 'power structure' though. It relies on voluntary participation. You can walk out of Church whenever you want. Doing what you want tends to be quite narrow, hedonistic and unsatisfying in the end. It's easier to make the argument for free time from higher principles.
        jseban 4y ago
        Haha ok so church has no power. And people can never be free, they must be institutionalised, and we should use shortening of working hours to just move them to a different institution that is even more old fashioned and increasingly failing, than then ones we are freeing them from. Well I guess we can say that we have a fundamentally different view on what constitutes development and improvement of life and society.
  - splitstud 4y ago
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    What "special status"? It simply is how the world is, as we've seen over all of history. Yes some marriages end in divorce and families disconnect in some cases, with various outcomes. The family still exists even if no-one participates in it. The guy is being overworked and unable to see his kids, I'm all for that guy seeing his kids. It can have huge knock on effects if it's ignored. You aren't forced to participate in family. Family is built from natural impulses, biological connections and installs in the children an inheritance of values, schooling and relationships. There are reasons from first principles for families and the surrounding neighbourhood, city and country benefits from families. You can't hand-wave away the meaning of family as 'power' and 'arbitrary'.
    - jseban 4y ago
      > What "special status"? It simply is how the world is, as we've seen over all of history. And we are trying to move into the future, not the past. Are nuclear families really so important and successful that we need more of it? Is this really an undebatable absolute truth that should be forced on people? Let people decide on their own if they want to spend their new found free time on families or something else. Edit: the "special status" is loyalty, and loyalty is bad if we are trying to live in a meritocracy.

by jseban 4y ago

barrysteve 4y ago

What's arbitrary about a family? It's changed in size over the history of homo sapiens, but it has always existed and is pretty obviously a biological necessity and unavoidable natural law for us. The arguments against it are entirely abstract and ungrounded.

jseban 4y ago
You assign an enormous amount of special status to certain people who you happen to be related to by blood, and that's arbitrary. It works when it works, and it doesn't work when it doesn't. What natural law says it's better to spend time with/live only with people who are related to by blood? The only necessity for reproduction is sexual intercourse. A family is susceptible to the same abuse and corruption as any other arbitrary power structure. The arguments against it are the divorce rates, and they are not abstract or ungrounded.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Divorces are between people not related by blood (usually). The reason you provide resources to blood relatives (kids) is to give your genes the best chance to survive.
  - jseban 4y ago
    What if a person not related by blood will give your kids better chances? What says that the parent will necessarily be the "best" person for their child through their whole life, and not someone else? That's arbitrary. You see no issues with swearing life long loyalty to blood relations? That's just going to be the optimal solution in every case? That's making it a little bit too easy don't you think?
    - thebean11 4y ago
      Are you arguing that there's zero biological programming specific to children or blood relatives?
      - jseban 4y ago
        No, but I'm arguing that it's very unreliable, often fully backfires and becomes actually destructive, and that in our modern society there are other factors that are much more relevant to people's success in life, and blood relations I would say is fully arbitrary. It's also just as natural for people to branch out and leave their families, as it is to stay close to their families. And I think it's irrelevant to the discussion of shortening working hours, and a bad example because it's another oppressive construct. It's like arguing for shortening working hours so that people can go to church more, and church is healthy. Really? That's highly debatable, and obviously another power structure which is also old fashioned and has seen decreasing success. How about just shortening the working hours so that people can be more, free? And do what they want?
        barrysteve 4y ago
        > so that people can go to church more, and church is healthy. Really? That's highly debatable, and obviously another power structure which is also old fashioned This one is so debatable because the definition and theological implications of Church 'healthiness' depend upon many different variables and can differ subtly across all Churches. Church isn't a 'power structure' though. It relies on voluntary participation. You can walk out of Church whenever you want. Doing what you want tends to be quite narrow, hedonistic and unsatisfying in the end. It's easier to make the argument for free time from higher principles.
        jseban 4y ago
        Haha ok so church has no power. And people can never be free, they must be institutionalised, and we should use shortening of working hours to just move them to a different institution that is even more old fashioned and increasingly failing, than then ones we are freeing them from. Well I guess we can say that we have a fundamentally different view on what constitutes development and improvement of life and society.
- splitstud 4y ago
- barrysteve 4y ago
  What "special status"? It simply is how the world is, as we've seen over all of history. Yes some marriages end in divorce and families disconnect in some cases, with various outcomes. The family still exists even if no-one participates in it. The guy is being overworked and unable to see his kids, I'm all for that guy seeing his kids. It can have huge knock on effects if it's ignored. You aren't forced to participate in family. Family is built from natural impulses, biological connections and installs in the children an inheritance of values, schooling and relationships. There are reasons from first principles for families and the surrounding neighbourhood, city and country benefits from families. You can't hand-wave away the meaning of family as 'power' and 'arbitrary'.
  - jseban 4y ago
    > What "special status"? It simply is how the world is, as we've seen over all of history. And we are trying to move into the future, not the past. Are nuclear families really so important and successful that we need more of it? Is this really an undebatable absolute truth that should be forced on people? Let people decide on their own if they want to spend their new found free time on families or something else. Edit: the "special status" is loyalty, and loyalty is bad if we are trying to live in a meritocracy.