There's an interesting article by Byrne Hobart from a few years ago, The Pirahã Are Off By One (https://byrnehobart.medium.com/the-pirah%C3%A3-are-off-by-one-9c77eb66a6d9). His basic observation was that zero, one, or many is a decent approximation of reality. This can be applied to categorize organisms by how work is shared between males and females. In any given species, the prototypical male provides material support for zero, one, or many females. The case of zero is most prominent among hive insects, where the males are disposable and frequently killed after mating. Individuality among both genders is suppressed, with work carried out by selfless, childless females with the exception of the queen. The case of many is most common among mammals, where a small number of powerful, dominant males accumulate females. The case of one is most common among birds. Among pair-bonding birds, female-driven sexual selection predominates, leading males to develop beautiful plumage and impressive singing and dancing abilities.
Humans are a unique species in that we actually get to choose which category to belong to. Among collectivist societies, males converge to doing zero work, while women provide for the queen (the state). Among patriarchal societies, males provide for many females, yet ultimately control and own them. The West, by enforcing monogamy, encouraged a society where men don't just work to provide for the women they control, but work to impress them with creativity, innovation, and charming conversation.
Fascinating link - well articulated. That is indeed the thing with us humans - we have the choice to transcend our nature (should we use it). The WEIRD liberal project showed we could override basic instinct (to a significant but not total degree) by reprogramming our software using norms, laws, and (yes, religious) customs as self-inflicted constrains on our base hardware desires. Nature, however, never promised to be fair or good - those are costly choices we alone have the option to exercise.
St. Ambrose of Milan also observed that humans can and ought to imitate the our fellow bipedals, the birds. Even though we lack their natural ability to fly, our minds grant us the ability to soar above our earthly limits.
From his Hexameron:
"That man should have two legs and not more is altogether fitting. Wild animals and beasts have four legs, while birds possess two. Hence man has kinship with the winged flock in that with his vision he aims at what is high. He flies as if 'on the oarage of wings' by reason of the sagacity of his sublime senses. Hence it was said of him: 'Your youth is renewed like the eagle's' because he is near what is celestial and is higher than the eagle, as one who can say: 'But our citizenship is in heaven.'"
UBI is not a panacea, but any future without UBI is probably no future at all, or at least not one worth living in. As for where the real value will come from to keep with money printing, it will come from the same places that it comes from now (as we have been printing money for quite a while now, and ALL money has always been fiat money at base). The market will simply adjust either way.
Well you know maybe this shouldn't be so looked down upon. There is a thought group out there that actually carbon emissions would be way down if we cut all those useless, paper-pushing, no real value-added jobs out there. People would no need transport to work, offices could be smaller and more efficient, less paper would be wasted, etc etc...those are my thoughts ;-)
There's an interesting article by Byrne Hobart from a few years ago, The Pirahã Are Off By One (https://byrnehobart.medium.com/the-pirah%C3%A3-are-off-by-one-9c77eb66a6d9). His basic observation was that zero, one, or many is a decent approximation of reality. This can be applied to categorize organisms by how work is shared between males and females. In any given species, the prototypical male provides material support for zero, one, or many females. The case of zero is most prominent among hive insects, where the males are disposable and frequently killed after mating. Individuality among both genders is suppressed, with work carried out by selfless, childless females with the exception of the queen. The case of many is most common among mammals, where a small number of powerful, dominant males accumulate females. The case of one is most common among birds. Among pair-bonding birds, female-driven sexual selection predominates, leading males to develop beautiful plumage and impressive singing and dancing abilities.
Humans are a unique species in that we actually get to choose which category to belong to. Among collectivist societies, males converge to doing zero work, while women provide for the queen (the state). Among patriarchal societies, males provide for many females, yet ultimately control and own them. The West, by enforcing monogamy, encouraged a society where men don't just work to provide for the women they control, but work to impress them with creativity, innovation, and charming conversation.
Fascinating link - well articulated. That is indeed the thing with us humans - we have the choice to transcend our nature (should we use it). The WEIRD liberal project showed we could override basic instinct (to a significant but not total degree) by reprogramming our software using norms, laws, and (yes, religious) customs as self-inflicted constrains on our base hardware desires. Nature, however, never promised to be fair or good - those are costly choices we alone have the option to exercise.
St. Ambrose of Milan also observed that humans can and ought to imitate the our fellow bipedals, the birds. Even though we lack their natural ability to fly, our minds grant us the ability to soar above our earthly limits.
From his Hexameron:
"That man should have two legs and not more is altogether fitting. Wild animals and beasts have four legs, while birds possess two. Hence man has kinship with the winged flock in that with his vision he aims at what is high. He flies as if 'on the oarage of wings' by reason of the sagacity of his sublime senses. Hence it was said of him: 'Your youth is renewed like the eagle's' because he is near what is celestial and is higher than the eagle, as one who can say: 'But our citizenship is in heaven.'"
Another Bronwyn resource. YES PLEASE 🤗
UBI is not a panacea, but any future without UBI is probably no future at all, or at least not one worth living in. As for where the real value will come from to keep with money printing, it will come from the same places that it comes from now (as we have been printing money for quite a while now, and ALL money has always been fiat money at base). The market will simply adjust either way.
more of the same: "As India’s population soars, number of women in workforce shrinks" see https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/4/10/as-indias-population-soars-number-of-women-in-workforce-shrinks
Good spot - India’s cultural dynamics are interesting
Well you know maybe this shouldn't be so looked down upon. There is a thought group out there that actually carbon emissions would be way down if we cut all those useless, paper-pushing, no real value-added jobs out there. People would no need transport to work, offices could be smaller and more efficient, less paper would be wasted, etc etc...those are my thoughts ;-)
The climate case for division of home economics! (Clever)