3 ms·
I didn't read it that way. I read it as "the crisis of our current economic structure is rooted in demographic trends". One way to avoid problems is to push the
by DenisM 14y ago
I didn't read it that way. I read it as "the crisis of our current economic structure is rooted in demographic trends". One way to avoid problems is to push the fertility up, as discussed in the article. The other way, not discussed there, is to change the economic system. I wouldn't begrudge the author exploring just one possibility out of two, the one he believes to be more likely.
Also, it would be better if you skipped the adhom, and addressed the argument directly. It always leads to a more polite, more constructive conversation, the likes of which we all prefer to see here on Hacker News.
- lutusp 14y ago> I read it as "the crisis of our current economic structure is rooted in demographic trends". I couldn't have realistically exaggerated their over-the-top way of putting the issue, so I simply quoted theirs. > I wouldn't begrudge the author exploring just one possibility out of two, the one he believes to be more likely. In an essay it's always best to address all the options, not just one, even if the author intends to discuss only one of them in depth. Also, regardless of how we address or analyze the demographic issues, the only truly catastrophic outcome would be continued growth. > Also, it would be better if you skipped the adhom ... Not really an ad hominem. To a reader unfamiliar with the WSJ, it's simply context.
- DenisM 14y agoYour comment was the first on this article, and it set the tone for the entire discussion. Do you like what became of it?
- lutusp 14y agoMy comment was both germane and consistent with the tone of the linked article. > Do you like what became of it? Who cares what I like? The conversation will do just fine without checking with me or my tastes.