3 ms·
So, what are the salient points in this article? It's on a humanist website, and I kind of like humanists, and, in principle, humans, so I read it carefully. *
by card_zero 2y ago
So, what are the salient points in this article? It's on a humanist website, and I kind of like humanists, and, in principle, humans, so I read it carefully.
* Habits change. This insight is the bulk of the article. Restaurants are mentioned three times, but restaurants are a relic of class divisions from around 1900, where a patron is pampered by servants, while leaking money in all directions. So their continued existence is surprising, and maintained by habits, and the pandemic was a shakedown for habits.
* Something about resilience. Should I mention preppers? They tend to be introverts, I think, and they're all about resilience, so that confuses matters. But the general idea here is that soft pudgy cybernauts would be bewildered in an emergency that could not be dealt with by ordering deliveries. Could they go out and, like, ask for help, or patiently hunt for food in a crisis? I think the answer is actually mostly yes, and those who were conspicuously helpless would be helped, and this is really a non-issue. Go out for a pointless walk as non-specific training against divers emergencies is not great advice.
* Something about surprises (stimulation), and serendipity. This is a fair point but it's expensive, at least in terms of time, and the payoffs aren't so great. In return for losing an hour of coding, you might see a squirrel. I endorse this in moderation. Of course here I'm ignoring the main thrust which is about human interaction: as well as the squirrel, you might speak to an old lady (they constantly prowl the streets, waiting for scraps of conversation). And that's true, and adds variety, I suppose. There's a point in the article where this whole thesis of a massive crisis of shut-ins is watered down to advice to merely go out once in a while. In that light, the situation looks like less of a big deal. People still leave the house, a lot. It's only a change of emphasis, not, I think, a real problem.
- shiroiushi 2y ago>Restaurants are mentioned three times, but restaurants are a relic of class divisions from around 1900, where a patron is pampered by servants, while leaking money in all directions. So their continued existence is surprising, Huh? Restaurants have been around since ancient times, in societies across the globe. Here's a Wikipedia link for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restaurant#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restaurant#History Modern-format restaurants have been around since the late 1700s, but there's plenty of records of people eating in food-serving establishments in ancient Greek and Roman societies. I'm sure other, even more ancient societies had similar things, which are now lost to history.
- card_zero 2y ago1900 because that was when "the servant problem" arose, the problem being that nobody wanted to be a servant any more. But in some contexts the dynamic is maintained. I may be off by plus or minus three decades. Maybe 1930.
- shiroiushi 2y agoWhat are you talking about? Restaurants don't have any trouble hiring people to work there, as long as they pay enough. No one minds being a servant if they're getting paid enough. Of course, it's not a terribly glamorous profession, and you can get more pay doing something higher-skill, but that usually requires much more education and training, so working as a server appeals to people without that. I'm sorry, I just don't understand the point you're trying to make here.