3 ms·
> Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon I think you are right but it’s a big indictment of the scoliotic nature of our current
by bradleyjg 3y ago
> Given that we are not likely to see shorter career starts anytime soon
I think you are right but it’s a big indictment of the scoliotic nature of our current culture that it’s inconceivable that we could make even medium sized changes to how things work because they are producing suboptimal results.
We are at the civilizational stage where we have massive fights over tiny tweaks at the edges and no longer even dream utopic dreams. I don’t think that’s a healthy sign.
- inglor_cz 3y agoI think it is mostly a matter of coordination. It is much easier to develop a new fertilization technology than to get 150+ countries of the world to agree (and actually implement that agreement) that they will limit schooling of their youth and give them career opportunities sooner, so that their fertility rises.
- bradleyjg 3y agoWhy do all 150 countries have to do the same thing? Why can’t the Swedish people decide they are sick and tired of the Washington consensus with its effects on fertility, among other things, and try something different? It was less than 100 years ago that a small but not trivial number of people conceived and founded kibbutzim. Not the somewhat pathetic version that exists today, but the original radical version. I’m not saying it was a great idea but they believed that something different was possible and tried to build it. Who does that today?
- inglor_cz 3y agoIt is a bit of a Red Queen problem. Surely you can individually opt out of a certain secular trend, but there may be serious adverse consequences. Same as if you decide not to employ, say, gunpowder or the printing press; how many such societies survived the pressure of their neighbours?