I saw a comment recently that described the shift to a "consumer economy." Relative to boomers, millennials have increased access to goods and services like high-definition televisions, computers, international travel, and luxury foods (e.g., avocado toast). But in terms of wealth and assets, millennials have reduced or less feasible access to things like home ownership or college degrees (not to mention childcare or healthcare), compared to boomers. Though the causes of this shift are up for debate, it does seem that boomers had an easier path to ownership or growth, while millennials and beyond face more rent-seeking obstacles.
This is a great summary! I've joked with a coworker that while our capabilities can sometimes pale in comparison (such as dealing with massively high-dimensional data), at least we can run on just a few sandwiches per day.
"Humans will do what they’ve always tried to do—gain power, enslave, kill, control, exploit, cheat, or just be lazy and avoid the hard work—but now with new abilities that we couldn’t have dreamed of." -- A pretty bleak, and also accurate, observation of humanity. I have to hope that the alternative sentence encompassing all of the good can lead to some balance.
No, it is not accurate at all. There are some people that do all of these sure, however the vast majority of people live pretty ordinary lives where they do very little of what is described.
I actually think it is very intellectually lazy to be this cynical.
I think it is partially true. The vast majority of human beings don’t act like that. But it seems the ones in power or close proximity to power do.
This is why it is important to have societies where various forms of power are managed carefully. Limited constitutional government with guaranteed freedoms and checks and balances for example. Regulations placed on mega corporations is another example. Restrictions to prevent the powerful in government or business (or both!) from messing around with the rest of us…
I don't think there's much secret evil out there. I've taken a look at some people that were officially in power for something - they were nice handsome people - sometimes a bit stupid. I think the biggest problem is stupidity. Stupid people in power will do powerful stupid things - while they think that they're doing something great. The more intelligent ones can change their minds quickly if you feed them with good arguments - but that's not easy, because they often live in a bubble and are out of reach.
It's absolutely true, but most of the destruction is abstracted away so modern humans don't have to experience it directly or even really think about it. A staggering number of creatures are killed by normal people driving to normal things every year. Many more are killed by all of the resource extraction needed to supply our normal lives. Not to mention the vast numbers of wildlife that sees their habitat destroyed every year to make way for more housing and other development.
Killing animals for fun is an entire sport enjoyed by millions. Humans keep pets that kill billions of birds every year. The limited areas we've set aside to mostly let other nature be nature are constantly under threat and being shrunk down. The list of ways we completely subjugate other intelligent life on this planet is endless. We have driven many hundreds of species to extinction and kill countless billions every year.
I certainly enjoy the gains our species have made, just like everyone else on HN. I'd rather be in our position than any other species on our planet. But given our history I'm also pretty terrified of what happens if and when we run into a smarter and more powerful alien species or AI. If history is any guide, it won't go well for us.
This understanding can guide practical decisions. We shouldn't be barreling towards a potential super intelligence with no safeguards given how catastrophic that outcome could be, just like we shouldn't be shooting messages into space trying to wave our arms at whatever might be out there, any more than a small creature in the forest would want to attract the attention of a strange human.
Sorry but we weren't talking about Animal Welfare arguments. It was clearly in the scope of how people treat each other. Philosophical discussions similar to Janist/Vegan style argument are like well outside of the scope that being discussed.
As for hunting. I don't see anything wrong with hunting. I don't see anything wrong with eating meat.
As someone that has lived the vast majority of their life in the countryside, I also have little time for animal welfare arguments of the sort you are making.
> But given our history I'm also pretty terrified of what happens if and when we run into a smarter and more powerful alien species or AI. If history is any guide, it won't go well for us.
This is all sci-fiction nonsense. If we had any sort of aliens contact they wouldn't be many of them, or it would most likely be a probe like we send out probes to other planets. As for the super intelligence, the AI has an off switch.
The problem is that technology exponentially increases the negative effects of bad actors. The worst a sociopath could do in the stone age was ruin his local community; while today there are many more dystopian alternatives.
I don't think that is true either. There have been despots throughout all of human history that have killed huge amounts of people with technology that is considered primitive now.
Whereas much of the technology we have today has a massive positive benefit. Simply access to information today is amazing, I have learned how to fix my own vehicles, bicycles and do house repairs from simply YouTube.
As I said being cynical is being intellectually lazy because it allows you to focus on the negatives and dismiss the positives.
I don't think it's that accurate. Evil people are rare - and lazy people usually don't cause problems. The most real damage comes from human stupidity - from the mass of people that just want to help and do something good. Stupid People blindly believe anything they're told. And they do a lot of really bad things not because they're evil and lazy, but because they want to help achieve even the most stupid goal. Usually even nasty propagandists leaders aren't that evil - often they're just an intellectual failure - or have some mental issues. Themselves they don't do much practical evil - the mob of nice stupid people does the dirty work, because they just want to help.
I really liked this article, but it is pessimistic. Unfortunately that seems to be the culture-du-jour. Anger and fear drive engagement effectively, as it always has. If it bleeds, it Leeds has been a thing in news organizations since at least the 70s.
If we ignore the headlines peddled by those who stand to benefit the most from inflaming and inciting, we live in a miraculous modern age largely devoid of much of the suffering previous generations were forced to endure. Make no mistake there are problems, but they are growing exponentially fewer by the day.
An alternate take: humans will do what they’ve always tried to do—build, empower, engineer, cure, optimize, create, or just collaborate with other humans for the benefit of their immediate community—but now with new abilities that we couldn’t have dreamed of.
this is accurate because of the few who do it. however the cautionary and hopeful tale behind it is the majority when they stand up against it can change the distribution of power. today however we're comfortable and soft and too scared to do - so posts like this remind us to gain some courage to stand up for change.
The difference between meta and outputs reminds me of Goodhart’s law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Similar to the metricization of research and science, for example.
Well, if we're going to negotiate, let's negotiate both ways. You want me in the office? Then I have to commute, and my time's not free. Are you going to pay me for my commute time?
Right. If employers set RTO as the default, you may be able to negotiate remote time instead of a pay raise. They’re less willing to pay you more to commute and would rather see the commute as the expectation.
Salary isn’t a meter ticking from 9 to 5, and it’s not a line item of “WFH credits” vs. “commute debits.” Salary is simply the number that convinces you to show up and do the work. Whether you sit in an office, in your kitchen, or on the beach is irrelevant - the company pays because they need outcomes, not because of your postcode or chair type.
That’s why all this “WFH as benefit / RTO as cost” chatter is sleight of hand. It nudges you into negotiating around scraps instead of the only thing that matters: total compensation for total output. Companies push that framing precisely because it distracts you from asking for a bigger number.
My point is that, from the employee's point of view, the commute has to be factored into "total output". So if I've been getting $X for Y hours WFH, and now they want to give me $X for Y hours in the office, that's (Y+C) hours to me, and that's the same pay for more of my work - though part of the work doesn't benefit the company.
From the linked DHH writing: “There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.”
To clarify, who are the Brits exactly? Do the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh count, and who gets to say that? Also, the Ainu were there before the Japanese.
Yeah, I do think there are some interesting questions in this area, but the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world, and has led to countless civil wars. The most obvious one being “Israel is primarily a country for Israelis.”
But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
> the idea that a country is primarily a country for X is hugely problematic and racist in many parts of the world
That’s true in some parts of the world. But the opposite idea — that the people who’ve lived somewhere for thousands of years have no moral claim to their inheritance over the people who just arrived — has been equally destructive in other parts.
> one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
That’s a bad thing, is it? Is diversity not their strength?
A stable country is a country that is primarily a country of X. What constitutes X may change over time, but it works fine if it is slow and gradual.
> But one of the legacies of colonialism is the Middle East and Africa being carved up in lines that didn’t match the underlying cultural groups.
If it is not gradual and you have Y and Z beside X, is when trouble start. Middle East and lot of African countries is the example of this. Those people where unable to live together (too many cultural differences) in their home country, why should be different in Europe, where cultural differences will be even higher ?
That’s the point—- definitions of culture and identity can change over time. Since I’m from the US, I don’t have much more to say about lands belonging to people, but my comment about Japan is meant to highlight problems with the idea of islands being naturally “for” people.
>That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
One of the core tenets of liberalism is that multi cultural societies and nations are just as good as mono cultural ones. what are you trying to imply here with the africa and middle eastern examples
Oh that’s a core tenet? Since when? Did Adam Smith write about that? John Locke? Thomas Paine? Heck I’ll even take a Milton Friedman citation if you have one.
Probably since about early 1990s. Maybe I should say civic nationalism instead of multiculturalism but I think most liberals would reject the idea that ethnicity or heritage were important in determining nationality.
this is categorically different from multiculturalism. all cultures are not equal, and some are antithetical to liberal values. a diversity of people is good, but as much as possible society should prefer a common banner and shared loyalty, or view of civic duty. America has for a long time shown that there can be a combination of national identity and ethnic and religious diversity.
to that end, i think arguments for or against different degrees of immigration are valid and worth engaging (as opposed to shunning under false labels).
Good point. British people don't really exist. What are even English or Scottish people? French people? European people? Where does it start, where does it end? We don't know.
We don't know what a white person is. No idea, no clue. Where could we even start?
Funnily enough, though, those considerations never seem to apply to Palestinians, native Americans, indigenous Australians, etc. There is only a certain group that is somehow impossible to define precisely, yet is the primary target of those considerations.
That’s my point. There’s not really a singular “Brit” unless you designate one group to decide, and various other groups may also want to be considered British or not. Since I’m from the US, I won’t say more, because I’m sure there’s more to this I’m missing.
This is a big conflict in modern liberalism and democracy. If the british people vote for an ethnostate what are we supposed to do. subvert multicultural ideas? or subvert democracy?
I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and partisan. If I could tone that down, I would. I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all.
Another commenter here missed that point, thinking that people should just ignore what Trump says. The point is that what Trump says can be used to influence downstream policy in ways that might appear unexpected, but are certainly intentional.
>I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and intentional. If I could tone that down, I would.
It certainly crosses a line that makes the article rhetorical at best. It can never convince anyone of anything.
There's so much vitriol that even if there's facts in there to discern, I cant see it through the hyperbole and polarization.
>I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all.
I dont see any of that there. Maybe it is, but they lose the chance to make these points.
Scientific reference needs to remain objective and seek to maximize the audience.
The section “Breaking up is hard to do” covers this without inflammatory rhetoric. By first declaring Tylenol to cause autism, it can be ruled out as a recommendation for reducing fever. With no alternatives to reducing fever, vaccines can now be not recommended, and therefore not covered by insurance, if there’s any chance of fever complications. The announcement is not really about autism, but providing a justification to portray the fever risk as unavoidable.
As expected my lead reply was downvoted heavily. Why do you think my speech needs to be hidden/censored by the polarized side? Besides maintaining the echo chamber.
Rhetorical polarized articles like this are the problem.
I submitted this because I thought the article made insightful points about how an announcement like this can pave the way for downstream policy changes. I’m not trying to start a debate about the announcement itself.
The point of the article addresses this. A directive on Tylenol like this then gives pretext to dramatically reduce vaccine access, which affects everyone.
reply