4 ms·

What kind of confrontational approach do you mean?

hypfer 29d ago
The essay there weaponizes sarcasm + the emotional experience of that reality to hit the reader over the head with, in an attempt to break their script and force them to a change in perspective. This - evidently - worked and works, but there are trade-offs to it. Specifically, it is zero-sum, which eventually led to the gender war we have now. Since the defenses have been (for the most part) broken down, a modern pivot would likely move towards more unification again, I guess.
- disdegeneration 29d ago
  The social mechanics to decouple woman permanently from reproduction are already in the making. Incubators and AI educators and people can have children with a company, the rest of the social problems (the social network harem effect) then go out the window. If you need to be a millionaire to have a conventional family, tradition is out, corporate cloning is in. The working alternative to religious fundamentalism.
  - hypfer 29d ago
    This comment was dead on arrival, but I've vouched for it, because I believe it's interesting. I do not believe the conspiracy part, but I do also believe that this decoupling will happen eventually. It seems like the logical conclusion of the trajectory we're on. Leaving biological reality behind in the pursuit of individualism. It might be a good thing, but we might also find that we were not ready for the total freedom from said biological reality. But that is to be said about a lot of things, SV is pushing towards. But maybe we will also see stuff crashing down in the near-ish future, and then, pondering about the "end of biological reality" will seem like unreal hallucinations. ___ Hmm. The LLM I've been feeding this comment section pointed me at the Universe 25 Experiment. I've never heard of that before.
    - keiferski 29d ago
      Check out a book called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? It’s looking far more likely that traditional approaches to these questions will become more popular with time, simply because the people that have kids don’t have the opinions you’ve mentioned here. Which makes a lot of sense in a cultural evolution sense - you wouldn’t really expect individualism to outcompete group activity on a long timeline.
  - wojciii 29d ago
    While I support equality between biological sexes this had some ill effects. Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk with something else might be one of the causes of allergies and other ill effects (I'm guessing). To me it looks like women want to be compensated for the unpaid work of birthing children and taking care of them during their upbringing. No one fucking likes unpaid work. It's not right. For me this if the current feminism and I do support it.
    - exmadscientist 29d ago
      > (I'm guessing) Please don't do this. It's not helpful.
    - christkv 29d ago
      The fact that everything in life is compared to monetary value is the problem. There abstraction of paternalism to the state is another. For the state you are a number for your family and friends you have a name
    - swagasaurus-rex 29d ago
      Isn’t being a stay at home wife being compensated to do that work? Your bills and mortgage are paid for, so is the food. You get to spend time with the kids. Sounds way less stressful than a high stakes job.
      - sersi 29d ago
        You also have no way to get out of a bad relationship if things turn sour. Being stay at home is extremely risky, you give up freedom.
        hypfer 29d ago
        Tbf, that's a very "modern"-ish way of viewing the idea of "committing". And there are good reasons for that, of course, but with that thinking, you're always going to be not fully there, which might be harmful in different ways than the ways it tries to protect against. It's a hard problem to solve, because Humans and interpersonal stuff is hard, but, ideally, one would frontload the friction, so that there is no need to keep an out on hot standby.
- makeitdouble 29d ago
  > zero-sum One direction out of it is reducing the social burden on the family in the first place. Perhaps at some point we end at a zero-sum state, but IMHO we're still a long way from there. I'm thinking about suits and Y-shirts and other garment that require either special care or cost enough to need babying for instance. Many professions still set them as standard job attire, which makes dealing with them either costly or time consuming. Meals are another point where the expectation on the level of meals cooked in a family will directly impact the QOL of the primary care giver. Home design will also bring more or less chores etc. Looking at countries with high men/women gap, they tend to keep high maintenance traditions alive and social expectations are more punishing towards families that "cut corners".

The essay there weaponizes sarcasm + the emotional experience of that reality to hit the reader over the head with, in an attempt to break their script and force them to a change in perspective. This - evidently - worked and works, but there are trade-offs to it. Specifically, it is zero-sum, which eventually led to the gender war we have now. Since the defenses have been (for the most part) broken down, a modern pivot would likely move towards more unification again, I guess.

disdegeneration 29d ago
The social mechanics to decouple woman permanently from reproduction are already in the making. Incubators and AI educators and people can have children with a company, the rest of the social problems (the social network harem effect) then go out the window. If you need to be a millionaire to have a conventional family, tradition is out, corporate cloning is in. The working alternative to religious fundamentalism.
- hypfer 29d ago
  This comment was dead on arrival, but I've vouched for it, because I believe it's interesting. I do not believe the conspiracy part, but I do also believe that this decoupling will happen eventually. It seems like the logical conclusion of the trajectory we're on. Leaving biological reality behind in the pursuit of individualism. It might be a good thing, but we might also find that we were not ready for the total freedom from said biological reality. But that is to be said about a lot of things, SV is pushing towards. But maybe we will also see stuff crashing down in the near-ish future, and then, pondering about the "end of biological reality" will seem like unreal hallucinations. ___ Hmm. The LLM I've been feeding this comment section pointed me at the Universe 25 Experiment. I've never heard of that before.
  - keiferski 29d ago
    Check out a book called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? It’s looking far more likely that traditional approaches to these questions will become more popular with time, simply because the people that have kids don’t have the opinions you’ve mentioned here. Which makes a lot of sense in a cultural evolution sense - you wouldn’t really expect individualism to outcompete group activity on a long timeline.
- wojciii 29d ago
  While I support equality between biological sexes this had some ill effects. Giving birth is a woman job. Breastfeeding is a woman's job. Replacing breast milk with something else might be one of the causes of allergies and other ill effects (I'm guessing). To me it looks like women want to be compensated for the unpaid work of birthing children and taking care of them during their upbringing. No one fucking likes unpaid work. It's not right. For me this if the current feminism and I do support it.
  - exmadscientist 29d ago
    > (I'm guessing) Please don't do this. It's not helpful.
  - christkv 29d ago
    The fact that everything in life is compared to monetary value is the problem. There abstraction of paternalism to the state is another. For the state you are a number for your family and friends you have a name
  - swagasaurus-rex 29d ago
    Isn’t being a stay at home wife being compensated to do that work? Your bills and mortgage are paid for, so is the food. You get to spend time with the kids. Sounds way less stressful than a high stakes job.
    - sersi 29d ago
      You also have no way to get out of a bad relationship if things turn sour. Being stay at home is extremely risky, you give up freedom.
      - hypfer 29d ago
        Tbf, that's a very "modern"-ish way of viewing the idea of "committing". And there are good reasons for that, of course, but with that thinking, you're always going to be not fully there, which might be harmful in different ways than the ways it tries to protect against. It's a hard problem to solve, because Humans and interpersonal stuff is hard, but, ideally, one would frontload the friction, so that there is no need to keep an out on hot standby.
makeitdouble 29d ago
> zero-sum One direction out of it is reducing the social burden on the family in the first place. Perhaps at some point we end at a zero-sum state, but IMHO we're still a long way from there. I'm thinking about suits and Y-shirts and other garment that require either special care or cost enough to need babying for instance. Many professions still set them as standard job attire, which makes dealing with them either costly or time consuming. Meals are another point where the expectation on the level of meals cooked in a family will directly impact the QOL of the primary care giver. Home design will also bring more or less chores etc. Looking at countries with high men/women gap, they tend to keep high maintenance traditions alive and social expectations are more punishing towards families that "cut corners".