We really need to start having a serious conversation about this....

[cyrano]

Overworked to me sounds much better than unemployed. Plus, what's wrong with working too much? I enjoy work. Ora et labora.

There's nothing wrong with it if you like it and if you are the one who gets to decide when and where you do overtime.

It's an entirely different picture when your boss can tell you to do unpaid or underpaid overtime at the last moment. Especially if you only get minimum wage and there's no hope of a better job within the company.

It's also not a good thing when it lasts too long. And it's a disaster when it becomes the rule.

 

[cyrano]

Greta Thunberg is a sign of what lives with the last generation. They're fed up paying for the errors of previous generations, especially because there's no way out of the aging population problem.

Even if the press sometimes pictures her as an expert, she never said she was.

Still, experts are wrong too, in about half of the cases. That's what you need to understand about science. Even Newton has been amended.

If you need absolute certainty, there's only religion to turn too. Yet, a lot of deeply religious people have periods of doubt in their life.

Everything is relative.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

There's nothing wrong with it if you like it and if you are the one who gets to decide when and where you do overtime.

Which is why a society built on a foundation of individual rights and personal responsibility is superior to other options. Otherwise you allow/enable people to "like" not working at all nor taking any responsibility for their decisions

It's an entirely different picture when your boss can tell you to do unpaid or underpaid overtime at the last moment. Especially if you only get minimum wage and there's no hope of a better job within the company.

Why the "within the company" restriction? If you live in a free society you are able to change companies (and towns/cities if necessary).

It's also not a good thing when it lasts too long. And it's a disaster when it becomes the rule.

Like when government decides for you or restricts your choices "for your own good" or, worse, "for the good of others?"

 

[user 37518]

Everything is relative.

No, and that is the biggest error of our times, believing it is. That is where you get phrases like "You have your truth and I have my truth".

 

[Recording Engineer]

No, and that is the biggest error of our times, believing it is. That is where you get phrases like "You have your truth and I have my truth".

Or John’s “two movies” or Kellyanne’s “alternative facts”.

 

[user 37518]

especially because there's no way out of the aging population problem.

Can you elaborate on what is the aging population problem? I don't want to respond unless I am sure I know what you mean.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Or John’s “two movies” or Kellyanne’s “alternative facts”.

It is human nature to develop personal filters to help us evaluate world events. We will have different personal filters based on our different life experiences. The political persuasion industry tries to mold these filters for their commercial benefit.

I often see arguments on social media about "truth" and "lies". I routinely say that I prefer electronics because there are objective truths confirmed by measurement. In politics "truth" and "lies" tend to be more subjective. We need to try to understand our own personal biases. I've shared this story before but back in the 70s I subscribed to three daily newspapers for one year (WSJ, NYT, and WAPO). After one year I gained a pretty good handle on their editorial biases and insight about my own.

JR

PS: I did not make up the "two movies" explanation for different interpretations of the same world events. Someone smarter than me came up with it, but I use it because it helps explain disagreements in so much modern discourse. .

 

[boji]

You have your truth and I have my truth

personal filters to help us evaluate world events.

This is a good example of what is meant by the term "defended blindspots".

Which is why a society built on a foundation of individual rights and personal responsibility is superior to other options.

True. However this superior option of governance doesn't alleviate the tragedy of the commons, perverse incentive structures, or economic stability via unlimited growth potential.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I agree John. It’s just that our natural biases don’t change what actually happened, just what we tell ourselves what happened. I find most local tv news pretty decently try to stick with facts; even though sometimes I can’t follow their storyline. Sometimes it’s like: So what happened? I avoid all talking-head “news opinion/entertainment” shows. Yahoo News gives me an extremely-wide variety of opinion; even if I’m not looking for it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is a good example of what is meant by the term "defended blindspots".

Do you mean human nature? we all have biases and cough "blindspots".

When we value or weigh issues differently that could be characterized as a blindspot.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

This is a good example of what is meant by the term "defended blindspots".


True. However this superior option of governance doesn't alleviate the tragedy of the commons, perverse incentive structures, or economic stability via unlimited growth potential.

No system of governance solves all problems because there are many problems that cannot be solved by government at all. The best systems acknowledge human fallibility and attempt to mitigate its effects on those granted (temporary) power over others. Societies and individuals must address the remainder of the problems, but lately I see (here in the US, where I directly observe and experience things) government trying to supplant society, various groups trying to undermine social norms, and fewer individuals willing to accept the responsibilities that come with living in a free society. The effects are apparent over the last couple of decades.

 

[JohnRoberts]

No system of governance solves all problems because there are many problems that cannot be solved by government at all. The best systems acknowledge human fallibility and attempt to mitigate its effects on those granted (temporary) power over others. Societies and individuals must address the remainder of the problems, but lately I see (here in the US, where I directly observe and experience things) government trying to supplant society, various groups trying to undermine social norms, and fewer individuals willing to accept the responsibilities that come with living in a free society. The effects are apparent over the last couple of decades.

A longer view of past history can suggest an agenda or strategy behind some of those shifts. Even I am getting bored (a little) by rants about marxism behind the march toward serfdom (socialism) , but honestly we have been more than a little pregnant with socialist policies for several decades. That baby has been carried to term and is still growing.

Hopefully we can avoid the ditches on either extreme sides of our path.

JR

 

[Tubetec]

The ageing population situation is plane to me , I not sure what needs to be explained about it ,
Of course the planet in a global sense is also facing overpopulation at the same time ,
The more 'successful' your society the more the birth rate drops , fertillity drops , people get older and the system starts to fall appart , unless were replaced ,
whats so difficult to understand there .

I like to think we all have a frame of reference , it does amount to watching two different movies depending on which side of the socio-economic fence you come from ,

 

[JohnRoberts]

The ageing population situation is plane to me , I not sure what needs to be explained about it ,
Of course the planet in a global sense is also facing overpopulation at the same time ,
The more 'successful' your society the more the birth rate drops , fertillity drops , people get older and the system starts to fall appart , unless were replaced ,
whats so difficult to understand there .

"The population bomb" written by Paul Ehrlich in 1968 was concerned about us running out of enough food. Somehow we manage to still overfeed enough people to create metabolic syndrome. This was mostly discredited by the 1970s...

But I understand that old people can be a PIA.

JR

 

[user 37518]

The ageing population situation is plane to me , I not sure what needs to be explained about it ,
Of course the planet in a global sense is also facing overpopulation at the same time ,
The more 'successful' your society the more the birth rate drops , fertillity drops , people get older and the system starts to fall appart , unless were replaced ,
whats so difficult to understand there .

I like to think we all have a frame of reference , it does amount to watching two different movies depending on which side of the socio-economic fence you come from ,

I just want to make sure that is the same thing we are talking about, those complaining that people are 'reproducing too much'. while at the same time complaining that there is not enough young people. I just want to point out the absurdity of it all.

 

[Tubetec]

On a global scale yes were overproducing ,
but check the average reproduction rate of America , compare the different ethnic groups and tell me the patern you see .

 

[user 37518]

On a global scale yes were overproducing ,
but check the average reproduction rate of America , compare the different ethnic groups and tell me the patern you see .

Well, it is clear that African and Middle Eastern countries have the largest fertility rates, the first world has the lowest, with South Korea being almost near catastrophe. Latin America, which for years was very fruitful, is mostly below replacement rate, and will probably be near the same birth rates of Europe soon.

While it is true that the most advanced economies have the lowest fertility rates, I wouldn't brag about that as an accomplishment. Some here (and in other places) tend to suggest that the reason for the low fertility rates by the more advanced and civilized citizens of the first world is due to the fact that they are economically prosperous and are much more conscious, cultured, and aware of the world needs, therefore they reproduce less, whilst those more primitive individuals in the underdeveloped world, who are ignorant and oblivious to the current world and climate catastrophe, keep reproducing without control. This is of course not the case. While there is of course a cultural element to it, the truth is that the flooding of birth control, the destruction of the family by global institutions, and the normalization of abortion in the most advanced economies, have created the idea that children are disposable and a nuisance, that the worst thing you could do if you are a woman is to be a mother, and if you are a man, to be a father, because you will be destroying the world; besides, children and a family are so passé. Simultaneously, to add a bit more of irony and confusion, while they preach that you shouldn't have children, they use phrases like "What kind of world will we inherit our children?".

At the same time, and I have mentioned this before, the African countries which have so much need of many things have also been flooded by birth control and abortion clinics. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have invested so much resources on directly sending birth control to Africa. Really, is birth control the largest problem in Africa? Should a so-called philanthropic organization focus most of their resources on keeping those Africans from reproducing or are there more pressing issues that should, perhaps, be attended first? My best guess is that these people (who ironically love to scream 'racist' at everyone) prefer the Africans to stop breeding rather than feeding them or providing them with education, medicines, or anything else.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Well, it is clear that African and Middle Eastern countries have the largest fertility rates, the first world has the lowest, with South Korea being almost near catastrophe. Latin America, which for years was very fruitful, is mostly below replacement rate, and will probably be near the same birth rates of Europe soon.

While it is true that the most advanced economies have the lowest fertility rates, I wouldn't brag about that as an accomplishment. Some here (and in other places) tend to suggest that the reason for the low fertility rates by the more advanced and civilized citizens of the first world is due to the fact that they are economically prosperous and are much more conscious, cultured, and aware of the world needs, therefore they reproduce less, whilst those more primitive individuals in the underdeveloped world, who are ignorant and oblivious to the current world and climate catastrophe, keep reproducing without control. This is of course not the case. While there is of course a cultural element to it, the truth is that the flooding of birth control, the destruction of the family by global institutions, and the normalization of abortion in the most advanced economies, have created the idea that children are disposable and a nuisance, that the worst thing you could do if you are a woman is to be a mother, and if you are a man, to be a father, because you will be destroying the world; besides, children and a family are so passé. Simultaneously, to add a bit more of irony and confusion, while they preach that you shouldn't have children, they use phrases like "What kind of world will we inherit our children?".

At the same time, and I have mentioned this before, the African countries which have so much need of many things have also been flooded by birth control and abortion clinics. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have invested so much resources on directly sending birth control to Africa. Really, is birth control the largest problem in Africa? Should a so-called philanthropic organization focus most of their resources on keeping those Africans from reproducing or are there more pressing issues that should, perhaps, be attended first? My best guess is that these people (who ironically love to scream 'racist' at everyone) prefer the Africans to stop breeding rather than feeding them or providing them with education, medicines, or anything else.

I’ve mentioned this before, but all your talk of population just seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I truly know nothing about it and therefore, have no real opinion on it, but what you write just reads bizzare. Anyone else have a different perspective?

 

[user 37518]

I’ve mentioned this before, but all your talk of population just seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I truly know nothing about it and therefore, have no real opinion on it, but what you write just reads bizzare. Anyone else have a different perspective?

What exactly seems bizzare to you? Your contribution is so vague, or rather, it doesn't contribute anything.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I’ve mentioned this before, but all your talk of population just seems bizarre to me. Honestly, I truly know nothing about it and therefore, have no real opinion on it, but what you write just reads bizzare. Anyone else have a different perspective?

Bizarre, but mostly factual if you'd bother to check. If you have no opinion, by what reference can you call another's opinion bizarre?