4 ms·

Yup. We can pat ourselves on the back about changing gender roles, but the fact remains that when a man loses his job his chance of divorce goes way up. [1] Pe

Yup. We can pat ourselves on the back about changing gender roles, but the fact remains that when a man loses his job his chance of divorce goes way up. [1] Personally I think trying to reprogram humans to fight biology is a lost cause. But people keep trying. [1] https://time.com/4425061/unemployment-divorce-men-women/ https://time.com/4425061/unemployment-divorce-men-women/

xg15 4y ago
I mean, we're making pretty good progress with gene editing and understanding how the brain works on a neurological level. If biology is the problem, we might have an actual chance to solve this :)
- lordfrito 4y ago
  Wow build a better human and all that. Eugenics all over again. Are you serious or is this sarcasm?
  - light_cone 4y ago
    I don't know why, but the word 'eugenics' is enough to trigger a thought-terminating cliché. Maybe the GP was being tongue-in-cheek, maybe not, but it's always a strong reaction to this word. I understand it was used as an excuse to justify genocide, but I don't understand why the concept of eugenics is viewed as profoundly immoral by itself. I get that it's a slippery slope, and that's a valid reason to ban it, but I never see it formulated that way, only a "NO! NEVER!!" non-argument. We've always been fighting diseases, tried to better our condition, but if we're using genetics to prevent lethal diseases it's suddenly immoral? (Not saying it's what was talked about above, just using a clear cut example here). I really don't get it. I find on the contrary that not preventing horrible painful diseases on purpose, on the basis of us not wanting to feel uneasy, is what could be called immoral. I think that at least for clear cut cases, it should be debated. It's a little bit like transhumanism: a lot of people use glasses, or prosthesis without any issues. It's already transhumanism IMO, but people do not label it that way, so that's accepted, while the word transhumanism itself is vehemently rejected.
    - lordfrito 4y ago
      If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that any philosophical argument that justifies taking action to "improve" people is inherently dangerous. Eventually such ideas take political form. I can't think of a single example from history where such philosophies weren't eventually used to justify horrible actions. Transhumanism is great if your transhuman. Nazism was great for the Nazis. I don't see much of a difference between the two for the rest of us.
      - light_cone 4y ago
        I get that, I understand very well it's a slippery slope. For me it's just a cursor, whereas I think that people pretend there is no cursor, only absolute values. I guess it's a question of semantics. Because by reading you, using my definition of transhumanism, you're implying that wearing glasses is already a step too far (because it's using technology to improve/fix yourself). But of course I don't think that's what you believe. So clearly, these words are tainted, because we're not talking about the same thing really.
        lordfrito 4y ago
        Not knocking you or general discussion on transhumanism. There's different definitions, and I haven't read up on it enough. Agree that reading glasses isn't a problem, sorry if that's what you thought I was arguing. The original comment was talking about improving people through genetics and brain tinkering. That's just a modern form of Eugenics, and I thought that we all agreed that this line of thinking doesn't reach anywhere constructive and is best avoided. Very delicate stuff were talking about here. I'm all for helping cure disease, but some argue that weakens the overall gene pool and opens up the door for superbugs etc. Win a short term battle, lose the war. The stakes are very very high when talking about this stuff. Move fast and break things... just... NO. Much caution. As I get older, I feel the time is ripe for when the younger generation will make vast sweeping decisions which will end in them relearning the lessons of the past the hard way. Too many voices saying "This time its different" echoing all around me. Too many people willing to tear down too much that has been built. If history isn't learned the easy way, it will be learned the hard way. I guess I'm just throwing out some caution here when dealing with blanket statements about improving humans.
- anon291 4y ago
  That's great. Many of us humans want to live in human society. What you're describing is a non-human society. If you're actually changing the genetics, it doesn't make sense to consider us the same species at that point. That's like dogs and wolves.
itsmemattchung 4y ago
Strikes fear in my heart. Just a little over a year ago, July 2021, I left FAANG to start my own software consulting company and there were periods of feast or famine (especially during early days...I mean its still early days, I guess) with the income exploding then dropping to nil. In order to preserve my marriage, I sometimes (okay, often) wonder whether I should return back to the old 9-5. Life trade offs.
- JakeAl 4y ago
  I would say yes. Maximize your income/take as much as possible while you are young as opportunities will evaporate one day. I've been unemployed for 8 years and can't even get blue collar jobs because I've always been a white collar worker. I literally have decades of experience working for high profile fortune 500 companies managing commercial web site and software production. Now everyone wants programmers or lead programmers they can pile management or design tasks onto, or just project managers or scrum masters or business analysts or product owners, not someone whose job has been to do all of those things and needs to level up.
- crossroadsguy 4y ago
  Isn’t it rather prudent to also wonder whether such a marriage is worth preserving which requires one to walk on such eggshells? I mean beyond the usual “but I love my… adjustments.. you know you know.. ” trope.
  - lordfrito 4y ago
    You're right of course. Unfortunately many of us us learn far too late that their marriage wasn't worth preserving in the first place.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  You could set up a Corp so that revenue goes into the company and you pay yourself a salary every month. That way, the Corp smoothes out variations before they reach your private bank account. Also might enable tax and other savings because then you purchase health insurance as a company, not as a freelancer.

xg15 4y ago

I mean, we're making pretty good progress with gene editing and understanding how the brain works on a neurological level. If biology is the problem, we might have an actual chance to solve this :)

lordfrito 4y ago
Wow build a better human and all that. Eugenics all over again. Are you serious or is this sarcasm?
- light_cone 4y ago
  I don't know why, but the word 'eugenics' is enough to trigger a thought-terminating cliché. Maybe the GP was being tongue-in-cheek, maybe not, but it's always a strong reaction to this word. I understand it was used as an excuse to justify genocide, but I don't understand why the concept of eugenics is viewed as profoundly immoral by itself. I get that it's a slippery slope, and that's a valid reason to ban it, but I never see it formulated that way, only a "NO! NEVER!!" non-argument. We've always been fighting diseases, tried to better our condition, but if we're using genetics to prevent lethal diseases it's suddenly immoral? (Not saying it's what was talked about above, just using a clear cut example here). I really don't get it. I find on the contrary that not preventing horrible painful diseases on purpose, on the basis of us not wanting to feel uneasy, is what could be called immoral. I think that at least for clear cut cases, it should be debated. It's a little bit like transhumanism: a lot of people use glasses, or prosthesis without any issues. It's already transhumanism IMO, but people do not label it that way, so that's accepted, while the word transhumanism itself is vehemently rejected.
  - lordfrito 4y ago
    If the history of the world has taught us anything, it's that any philosophical argument that justifies taking action to "improve" people is inherently dangerous. Eventually such ideas take political form. I can't think of a single example from history where such philosophies weren't eventually used to justify horrible actions. Transhumanism is great if your transhuman. Nazism was great for the Nazis. I don't see much of a difference between the two for the rest of us.
    - light_cone 4y ago
      I get that, I understand very well it's a slippery slope. For me it's just a cursor, whereas I think that people pretend there is no cursor, only absolute values. I guess it's a question of semantics. Because by reading you, using my definition of transhumanism, you're implying that wearing glasses is already a step too far (because it's using technology to improve/fix yourself). But of course I don't think that's what you believe. So clearly, these words are tainted, because we're not talking about the same thing really.
      - lordfrito 4y ago
        Not knocking you or general discussion on transhumanism. There's different definitions, and I haven't read up on it enough. Agree that reading glasses isn't a problem, sorry if that's what you thought I was arguing. The original comment was talking about improving people through genetics and brain tinkering. That's just a modern form of Eugenics, and I thought that we all agreed that this line of thinking doesn't reach anywhere constructive and is best avoided. Very delicate stuff were talking about here. I'm all for helping cure disease, but some argue that weakens the overall gene pool and opens up the door for superbugs etc. Win a short term battle, lose the war. The stakes are very very high when talking about this stuff. Move fast and break things... just... NO. Much caution. As I get older, I feel the time is ripe for when the younger generation will make vast sweeping decisions which will end in them relearning the lessons of the past the hard way. Too many voices saying "This time its different" echoing all around me. Too many people willing to tear down too much that has been built. If history isn't learned the easy way, it will be learned the hard way. I guess I'm just throwing out some caution here when dealing with blanket statements about improving humans.
anon291 4y ago
That's great. Many of us humans want to live in human society. What you're describing is a non-human society. If you're actually changing the genetics, it doesn't make sense to consider us the same species at that point. That's like dogs and wolves.

itsmemattchung 4y ago

Strikes fear in my heart. Just a little over a year ago, July 2021, I left FAANG to start my own software consulting company and there were periods of feast or famine (especially during early days...I mean its still early days, I guess) with the income exploding then dropping to nil. In order to preserve my marriage, I sometimes (okay, often) wonder whether I should return back to the old 9-5. Life trade offs.

JakeAl 4y ago
I would say yes. Maximize your income/take as much as possible while you are young as opportunities will evaporate one day. I've been unemployed for 8 years and can't even get blue collar jobs because I've always been a white collar worker. I literally have decades of experience working for high profile fortune 500 companies managing commercial web site and software production. Now everyone wants programmers or lead programmers they can pile management or design tasks onto, or just project managers or scrum masters or business analysts or product owners, not someone whose job has been to do all of those things and needs to level up.
crossroadsguy 4y ago
Isn’t it rather prudent to also wonder whether such a marriage is worth preserving which requires one to walk on such eggshells? I mean beyond the usual “but I love my… adjustments.. you know you know.. ” trope.
- lordfrito 4y ago
  You're right of course. Unfortunately many of us us learn far too late that their marriage wasn't worth preserving in the first place.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
fxtentacle 4y ago
You could set up a Corp so that revenue goes into the company and you pay yourself a salary every month. That way, the Corp smoothes out variations before they reach your private bank account. Also might enable tax and other savings because then you purchase health insurance as a company, not as a freelancer.