3 ms·

I just think this is a basic logical error. 39 year old me built a shed. 40 year old me then has a shed. 40 year old me did not influence or choose 39 year o

by throwaway22032 2y ago

I just think this is a basic logical error. 39 year old me built a shed. 40 year old me then has a shed. 40 year old me did not influence or choose 39 year old me. But 40 year old me does not have a shed due to luck. It was causative. Your parents and your past decisions are not luck based. If you want to call that luck, then you need a different word for actual luck such as chance encounters, lottery wins, unexpected windfalls etc, because otherwise we are just misinterpreting each other.

abenga 2y ago
If you didn't choose it, do it, and cannot change it, it's not up to you. Whatever parents n-1 year old you had, or nationality they had, are the same ones n year old you have. If they are abusive, or in war, you are screwed. Build a shed or not. Of course there are things you can do to improve your and your children's lives (and you should), but there are irreversible handicaps you can have through no choice or action of yours.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Define "luck". That's what this whole disagreement hinges on. You're using a different definition of luck. Sure, I reap the fruits of my past decisions, like the shed. More to the point, I reap the fruits of my parents' decisions. Is that luck? It's not luck from the perspective of actions having consequences, and parents doing things that help their children. It is luck from the perspective of "you didn't pick your parents", or from the "if you were going to be born to someone random, where and when would you want to be born?" perspective. So you and abenga are saying "yes it is!" "no it's not" about the same set of facts, because you're running different definitions of what is or is not luck. Arguments about the definitions of words are really uninteresting. What you and abenga are saying boils down to "yes, actions have consequences, and better actions lead to better consequences, both for yourself and your descendents, but no, you didn't select the parents, country, or time you were born to". Apart from the definition of "luck", do either of you actually disagree with either side of that? If so, with what part, and why? And, if you do agree with it, what conclusions do you draw?
- throwaway22032 2y ago
  I agree that the words don't matter. What it comes down to is that luck cannot be incentivised - a dice will always roll a 2, 1/6th of the time. But good behaviour can be incentivised, e.g. people choosing their partners well and providing stable environments for their children. We should incentivise good behaviour whilst also ensuring that luck doesn't result in unassailable leads e.g. a lottery win probably should not result in a 1000 year dynasty but a lottery win combined with intelligent estate planning, good mate selection, diversification etc probably should. > if you were going to be born to someone random, where and when would you want to be born I think that this is like asking, if 40 year old you were completely randomly spawned, whose life would you like to continue from. You can't. The lineage from your parents to you is the same as the lineage from you to you. It's a nonsense line of inquiry.

abenga 2y ago

If you didn't choose it, do it, and cannot change it, it's not up to you. Whatever parents n-1 year old you had, or nationality they had, are the same ones n year old you have. If they are abusive, or in war, you are screwed. Build a shed or not. Of course there are things you can do to improve your and your children's lives (and you should), but there are irreversible handicaps you can have through no choice or action of yours.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Define "luck". That's what this whole disagreement hinges on. You're using a different definition of luck. Sure, I reap the fruits of my past decisions, like the shed. More to the point, I reap the fruits of my parents' decisions. Is that luck? It's not luck from the perspective of actions having consequences, and parents doing things that help their children. It is luck from the perspective of "you didn't pick your parents", or from the "if you were going to be born to someone random, where and when would you want to be born?" perspective. So you and abenga are saying "yes it is!" "no it's not" about the same set of facts, because you're running different definitions of what is or is not luck. Arguments about the definitions of words are really uninteresting. What you and abenga are saying boils down to "yes, actions have consequences, and better actions lead to better consequences, both for yourself and your descendents, but no, you didn't select the parents, country, or time you were born to". Apart from the definition of "luck", do either of you actually disagree with either side of that? If so, with what part, and why? And, if you do agree with it, what conclusions do you draw?

throwaway22032 2y ago
I agree that the words don't matter. What it comes down to is that luck cannot be incentivised - a dice will always roll a 2, 1/6th of the time. But good behaviour can be incentivised, e.g. people choosing their partners well and providing stable environments for their children. We should incentivise good behaviour whilst also ensuring that luck doesn't result in unassailable leads e.g. a lottery win probably should not result in a 1000 year dynasty but a lottery win combined with intelligent estate planning, good mate selection, diversification etc probably should. > if you were going to be born to someone random, where and when would you want to be born I think that this is like asking, if 40 year old you were completely randomly spawned, whose life would you like to continue from. You can't. The lineage from your parents to you is the same as the lineage from you to you. It's a nonsense line of inquiry.