4 ms·
Well, I think that's part of the lock-in. Not kids exactly, but the fact that society has made raising kids over time a hugely expensive activity (whereas once
by vouaobrasil 1y ago
Well, I think that's part of the lock-in. Not kids exactly, but the fact that society has made raising kids over time a hugely expensive activity (whereas once it was not in much earlier times). Because in modern society, having a family means paying for services to keep them functioning (extracurricular activities, romantic vacations for the parents, daycare), and that was encouraged by the system not because it makes us the most happy, but because it is the most efficient for technological innovation.
- Qem 1y ago> because it is the most efficient for technological innovation Probably more efficient for rentism. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking It destroys the very conditions for the next generation of scientists being raised.
- vouaobrasil 1y agoOne does not necessarily need a healthy environment for the next generation of scientists if there is already a surplus of them willing to work in rather sordid conditions, and if there is a surplus of scientific discoveries that can be easily capitalized upon with few workers. Or if there is a surplus of science being done elsehwere. The system optimizes for short-term production and growth, and a good environment for science everyhere is not necessarily optimal for that.