N.S. Lyons and Freya India on young people's anxiety; Alice Evans on anxiety and infertility; Moses Sternstein on young people not growing up; Robin Hanson rants
The term "rant" suggests an argument driven by passion more than facts, an angry declamation. I think his observations are fair and level-headed even though they embody a quite negative view of our culture, and I too find myself in agreement with them.
"This sounds like a rant of someone close to that age."
I don't see that as a rant but it doesn't seem entirely true.
Are we more promiscuous than the 60s? Than gays (and heteros) before HIV? And the young today are having sex later and an increasing number not at all.
Who is working less? We are below the peak participation rate for 25-60 year olds, and probably below the peak for teens, but what about those over 60? And maybe less are working 80+ hrs/wk but isn't that a good thing? I'm not as sure the number working over 40 is down.
When and how did we promote innovation more?
What does invest in fertility even mean? Unless it's an odd way to say we chose to have less kids, I have no clue.
I understand Hanson’s concerns but don’t lose hope! Things could be much better but they could also be much worse. Even in San Francisco, so wildly reviled and condemned by conservatives, young people are trying to do new things, falling in love, working hard, dreaming dreams, raising kids, and forming new tribes.
Understanding there are no simple solutions, any "simple" solution is invariably wrong, there are no solutions only tradeoffs, etc., etc.... I still find myself thinking social media is the...or very near the... foundational problem. I believe Jonathan Haidt. There, I said it.
10/10 for your Sowell reference, but media can never be foundational. If the senders are already toxic, and if the receivers are already weak-minded and morally deficient (including children’s parents), social media is only hastening decay, not causing it.
Sure, overstated, wrong descriptor, I did say "or very near", mumble, mumble.....but dismissing with counterfactuals...coupla "ifs"... is kinda soft too.
I'm still with hardline Jonathan H. The dissenters say otherwise. Oh well...
The term "rant" suggests an argument driven by passion more than facts, an angry declamation. I think his observations are fair and level-headed even though they embody a quite negative view of our culture, and I too find myself in agreement with them.
This from the same Robin Hanson who thinks that the solution to incels is more prostitution. Or at least that's what he thought a couple years ago.
I don't have a problem with him being a weirdo but then don't get sanctimonious about traditional values lol.
"This sounds like a rant of someone close to that age."
I don't see that as a rant but it doesn't seem entirely true.
Are we more promiscuous than the 60s? Than gays (and heteros) before HIV? And the young today are having sex later and an increasing number not at all.
Who is working less? We are below the peak participation rate for 25-60 year olds, and probably below the peak for teens, but what about those over 60? And maybe less are working 80+ hrs/wk but isn't that a good thing? I'm not as sure the number working over 40 is down.
When and how did we promote innovation more?
What does invest in fertility even mean? Unless it's an odd way to say we chose to have less kids, I have no clue.
Yea, I'm fairly certain we are actually less promiscuous than we were in 1983, the year in this post that marks the fall from responsibility.
I guess Hansom means "you guys" not "we." :)
I understand Hanson’s concerns but don’t lose hope! Things could be much better but they could also be much worse. Even in San Francisco, so wildly reviled and condemned by conservatives, young people are trying to do new things, falling in love, working hard, dreaming dreams, raising kids, and forming new tribes.
we already know why fertility has declined
women marry later and the later you start having kids the less kids you will have
all the psychobabble is unnecessary
Understanding there are no simple solutions, any "simple" solution is invariably wrong, there are no solutions only tradeoffs, etc., etc.... I still find myself thinking social media is the...or very near the... foundational problem. I believe Jonathan Haidt. There, I said it.
10/10 for your Sowell reference, but media can never be foundational. If the senders are already toxic, and if the receivers are already weak-minded and morally deficient (including children’s parents), social media is only hastening decay, not causing it.
Sure, overstated, wrong descriptor, I did say "or very near", mumble, mumble.....but dismissing with counterfactuals...coupla "ifs"... is kinda soft too.
I'm still with hardline Jonathan H. The dissenters say otherwise. Oh well...