Most people won't listen to 10tb of unique tracks in their entire lives, let alone 30tb or 300tb... 1tb of music is about a full year of 24/7 unique tracks
This sort of "hurry up or it'll be too late" attitude is a great way to figure out that you don't want to have kids after it's too late to make that choice.
This is factually false :) and if you’re really worried, there are many options available to you to preserve what you will need or consider adoption - there are so many humans being born without a family after all.
I agree with you on a factual basis, but you understand that a large amount of people have a deep emotional instinct to not be ok with those options, right?
Indeed, that’s what I mean by raising awareness. It takes time to change such deeply rooted beliefs. I think if humans are to prosper and resolve planet-wide challenges like global warming, we need to be better at managing resources and we need to work together as a species, not separate counties fending for themselves.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with convincing people to not feel this way, but its admirable that you are putting in effort to change the world in a way that fits your morals
Most people I know realize they should have had kids sooner once they have them. Adoption is also not that easy, there are plenty of cases where adoption causes kidnapping.
There have been a lot of cases where adopted kids where not abandoned but rather taken from their parents. There is a market in adoptions and not everybody involved has been "clean".
Which is also OK. It's financially smart to realize you don't have the resources and not have kids.
If {some subset of the government, rich people, people who control the economy} want more people to have kids, which is something I keep hearing from that class of people: They need to collectively figure out how to put more money into the pockets of people. Higher salaries, drastic tax cuts, cheaper housing, more people will be financially ready and more kids will happen as a result. Also, work hours need to be standardized at 4 hours/day per person OR costs of living need to be designed that 1 parental income is enough.
i agree with most of your points, especially the reduction of work hours, but cost is not the issue that keeps people from having kids. it's actually the reverse. the more money people have, the less likely they have kids.
I think it's also because high middle class earners are financially smart (don't buy things if they don't have the money), AND health-smart (realize their body's needs, including sleep) so they choose logically not to have kids, because they do not have the resources for it, and will not sacrifice their own well-being just to have kids.
The upper class is financially smart, AND has the resources (20+ years of child rearing costs already secured upfront, ability to hire night nannies, ability to take a few years away from work without income, own a home and not at the mercy of rent increases), so they have kids.
The lower class is often not financially smart, is not health smart, and systematically poisoned to sacrifice themselves and buy things they cannot afford. They are given insufficient resources and told that they should have kids, so they do.
The lower class is often not financially smart, is not health smart, and systematically poisoned to buy things they cannot afford, including kids, so they have kids.
i don't believe that is true.
raising kids is not that expensive. what is expensive is the high expectations for what you should spend on your kids with that middle class and high earners have. like sending kids to college.
Huh? In a world where people have zero job security, could get put on some layoff or 15%-per-year PIP quota any time and lose their income at the whim of some politics 5 levels above, and any random health issue could cost hundreds of thousands due to insurance not paying, I'd say as a self-proclaimed financially literate person, that you'd need to save up a couple million in cash and set it aside to even begin considering kids.
I could be on the chopping block tomorrow at work and then have to downsize my lifestyle next week, but I'm prepared to downsize as a child-less person. If I didn't have the entire course of child-rearing costs saved up in cash I wouldn't consider starting the process. If children cost $2 million over the entire course of their life, I need to have $2 million now. In cash. That's the financially smart way in an income-uncertain world; you don't ever assume things that you don't already have.
20 years ago, job security was pretty good, you could relax and saving up the full cost in cash was not a prerequisite. You could throw your money into a mutual fund and get rich, because the US had sane economic leaders. You were virtually guaranteed a job if you had skills. None of this is guaranteed anymore. Nowadays, you either have it or you don't; the system guarantees you nothing about the future.
And if one wants to avoid that chopping block in today's corporate work environments, working nights and weekends is a good start, but then you'd have no time for kids.
2 million? how do you even come up with that number? you are proving my point.
food, clothes, school materials, a bike. maybe a computer. also a bed and a few square meters of space in your home. everything else is optional. that doesn't cost 100,000 per year. not even 10,000.
sure, with less money you have less to offer or your kids. no or only cheap vacations, no expensive toys. no fancy brand name clothes. no expensive extra curricular activities. and certainly no money for college. but none of these things are necessary to have and raise kids. and it is not irresponsible to have kids and raise them that way either.
Start with housing. A few more square meters costs ~$1000 more on top of what I pay now, per month.
That's $200K in today's dollars or $500-700K over their childhood (0-18 years) if you include inflation, rent increases over the next 20 years.
If you want to sleep 8 hours a day AND work demands 12-15 hours a day, you absolutely need nannies, add $500K for that.
Because today's work environments demand that many hours a day, you evidently don't have time to cook anymore so you need to buy all your food, add $20K/year for that, or $350K.
you seem to be living in a very expensive area. (where, if i may ask?). those with lower income are not going to be living there, so your constraints are not going to apply to them.
and your math only works for middle to high income earners.
2k/month for a nanny to compensate for 5 hours lost per day means that you have to earn 20$ per hour extra. in a minimum wage job that only pays $15 per hour you would be financially better off to work less, so you don't need that nanny.
so you simply aren't going to work 15 hours per day. same for the food. 20K per year is more than $50 per day. again, you are going to work less in order to make the time to cook because the extra money earned does not make up for the higher expense of eating out.
are you suggesting that there are no jobs that demand less than 12 hours per day? so your choice is either work 12-15 hours or be unemployed? i do not believe that.
> Which is also OK. It's financially smart to realize you don't have the resources and not have kids.
It's sad to see people so deep in the consumerist rat race that giving life is seen as a cell in their life's financial excel sheet.
Weirdly enough people who actually don't have money are the one having the most kids. And people who lived pretty much from 300k years ago until the ~1950s had it worse than you yet they had more kids. People making 1m a year have less kids than people working in fucking coal mines 100 years ago.
We don't have less kids because we're poorer than 50 years ago, we have less kids because we drunk way too much capitalist kool aid and put traveling, buying shit, careers, money in front of everything else on our list of priorities: https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-pull-back-from-values...
> giving life is seen as a cell in their life's financial excel sheet
It is, though. My own food, water, housing, heating, hobbies and things that make me happy, are all cells on that sheet as well. The numbers add up now. Money for kids would absolutely obliterate all the other cells on that sheet, and the numbers wouldn't add up.
In that scenario, the guy who kills a family is also an executioner. But in the context of a world where 2% of the population is executed every year, presumably that is one without much of a justice system, and more of a dictatorship (where the dictator and their underlings are pretty aggressive).
Edit: I think "most aggressive and independently-minded individuals" needs to be defined further, because, obviously, a human without a tribe isn't going to survive long, but also no tribe wants an unpredictable wildcard. So one can be aggressive, with long term strategic thinking, but also not impulsive so as to become persona non grata.
An aggressive, long term thinking individual (or group) can cull other "aggressive and independently-minded individuals" so they don't develop into threats.
> the guy who kills a family is also an executioner
Quite literally not... "executioner: an official who effects a sentence of capital punishment on a condemned person". An executioner is someone who is legally allowed to give death as a consequence of a judicial decision, not simply someone who kills.
Words have meaning an homicide isn't a murder, a murder isn't an execution, &c.
Sarkozy is out because in France you're free until proven guilty, unless you represent a risk to society or have a high risk of fleeing, neither apply to him, hence he's free until the final verdict
The other poster said sarkozy was sentenced to 5 years. How was that not the result of having been found guilty? I understand there are more trials to follow but do not see why that would free him.
You can appeal, and until every legal options have been pursued a verdict is not final. Since you're innocent until proven guilty, and you cannot be guilty untill all options have been pursued, you're free until the appeal has been completed.
Lesswrong looks like a forum full of terminally online neckbeards who discovered philosophy 48 hours ago, you can dismiss most of what you read there don't worry
If only they had discovered philosophy. Instead they NIH their own philosophy, falling into the same ditches real philosophers climbed out of centuries ago.
> the issue is there is very little text before the internet,
Hm there is a lot of text from before the internet, but most of it is not on internet. There is a weird gap in some circles because of that, people are rediscovering work from pre 1980s researchers that only exist in books that have never been re-edited and that virtually no one knows about.
There is no doubt trillions of tokens of general communication in all kinds of languages tucked away in national archives and private collections.
The National Archives of Spain alone have 350 million pages of documents going back to the 15th century, ranging from correspondence to testimony to charts and maps, but only 10% of it is digitized and a much smaller fraction is transcribed. Hopefully with how good LLMs are getting they can accelerate the transcription process and open up all of our historical documents as a huge historical LLM dataset.
The level of cope... The US and the west in general is on a much more dire trajectory than China (which is facing its own demons, no doubt about that)
There is not much left of communism in China besides the name, it's more akin to a government steered economy, which arguably is very similar to what the west had when we moved at our peak speed, albeit more authoritarian. They still have what we mostly lost: a long term historical view of geopolitic.
It's most accurate to say that China is still run by folks who are committed communists. These planners, by virtue of their decades of experience, understand the social value of markets and broad based technological growth, and want to wield those even better than liberal planners.
Yeah but then again most people think "if it's not capitalism it's communism", there is a whole spectrum and China definitely does not belong in the communist part of the spectrum anymore. It's a mix of authoritarian socialism and state capitalism, you can add many other words to the mix but communism isn't at the top of it anymore
New things deserve new definitions, we have to get out of the ww2 lingo where everyone is a nazi, a fascist, a communist or a capitalist, it's overly simplistic and muddies the water. 2025 China is completely different than 2000 China which itself is completely different than 1980 China.
The people profiting from the situation aren't the people dealing with the side effects, it really isn't that hard to understand... if you own a club or a building it's a gold mine. If you're just an average citizen everything is now more expensive, it's harder to find a place, you have to deal with rude people every fucking day, &c.
> I would expect that to be the minority of visitors.
If you live next to one the "minority" is at least once a week, usually on a workday because they're in vacation while you're not.
You get extra trash everywhere, puke in the staircase, empty bottles in front of the building, condoms thrown out of windows, &c. it's a never ending nightmare
