I'm pretty sure that we have all heard of David Benatar's asymmetry argument, which basically argues that it's better not to exist than to exist.
In an "ideal world," however, there would be no suffering which implies that the chart would look something like this.
Now, it seems that we can use his argument to promote natalism because people in an ideal world would be able to decide how much or how little pleasure they would like to indulge in. Would I be correct in saying that, or is there something that I am missing?
idk, it seems that it's better to exist than to not exist in an ideal society.
edit: This is mostly a thought experiment. I am not arguing that one day there will be a world without suffering.
edit 2: I've concluded that although his argument doesn't work in a world with no suffering and infinite pleasure, it wouldn't be worth it to bring someone into existence in this meaningless world
The ideal future for theocrats:
- LGBT+ people censored, persecuted, maybe even exterminated.
- Technology stagnated.
- Borders closed for immigrants with different beliefs.
- Trans kids being abandoned and subsequently killing themselves for not being able to live in a world that doesnβt accept them.
- A book full of lies and half truths dictating your every move.
- βFeelingsβ and bad ideas mattering more than facts.
I really hope that God does exist, only for him to show how wicked and cruel his alleged followersβ ways are.
Full disclosure, I come from Yugoslavia and from my understanding, vacation was granted a month in the year and each (most?) company, via the government, had a resort-like venue for the employee to vacation to for free or very cheap. It was mostly on the coast although there were other places.
There were also many vacations that Yugoslavs took to Italy, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, the UK, and America, along with eastern vacations to Czech, germany, Hungary, sometimes Russia, etc.
We met quite a few families on vacation who came from the USSR and told us they had to be on waiting lists for several years to go on vacation and that there was no point exchanging information or keeping contact since they wouldn't be able to return or meet us realistically.
Others that I know of from Kazakhstan had vacations organized for them, i.e. they would be told well in advance that they would go to Georgia and it would again be a long wait for it.
I have plenty of understanding/examples/insights into Yugoslav vacation but I'm limited to anecdotal evidence of the USSR's vacation policy and reality. If anyone can provide some information on that, it would be helpful! I know that the USSR had it documented that workers have a right to rest and leisure but it just seems like it was de jure but that de facto they didn't have complete control of their vacations/rests. Anything you can provide helps!
Thanks
I've always been fascinated by post apocalyptic fiction, and one thing that's always bugged me about a given game or movie is that the population scale is either too big or small.
When the population scale is too large, like for example, Fallout: New Vegas (don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved the game), it doesn't feel post apocalyptic anymore and fits better in a genre referred to as post post apocalyptic in this subreddit. With a lot of rebuilding and repopulation, it becomes too similar to the real world, too stable and boring. Life is no longer a fight for survival.
On the other hand, when the population scale is too small (ie. The Road), it does indeed feel post apocalyptic, but it becomes boring for a totally different reason. There are simply too few people for there to be much activity. With so few people, humanity is doomed to extinction within a few generations.
What would be the ideal population scale for major cities, average settlements and the world as a whole? When would a population scale become too big or small?
If I could change one thing about the show, it would be that contestants would only be police or correctional officers. I feel like the program and participants benefit the most from having that extra level of experience and insight. Yes, it is more dangerous if the actual prisoners find out. But I do believe that having 'civilians' there dampens the degree of information that comes from being in the prison. After all, one of the main points of the program is to fix the prisons. I also feel like it helps give perspective to the participants, like Ashley in s6.
I'm serious.
Even in a world where every woman is a "sex slave", men would get no sex.
Why? Who do you think will be in control?
The rich billionaires. Their money would mean they could afford to hoard "resources". They'd price incels out and incels would get nothing.
Hell, they'd buy your oneitis, your family members cause it would be legal. Fucking incels!
In a world where no woman has rights, that includes the 1-3 women you care about.
Fuck it, why stop there? They could buy incels for the lols. They'd legalise sex with the incels too and incels would be forced to fuck billionaire men cause they have no right to refuse.
For some reason, that seems worse for incels. They'd be forced to clean up after billionaires. That's the ultimate "cucking". Going sexless in a world of sex slaves.
Hell, every time they spend at a Walmart, every time buy a laptop or phone; they'll just help a billionaire take away sex from them.
And if you think billionaires will be "reasonable" and will "share" then you have another thing coming.
Incels will never get what they want.
Doron doesnβt explode at Shirin when his father dies, because he knows she couldnβt have sold him out.
Shirin flies off to Paris with her mother. Doron decides to join her because heβs had enough of all this craziness.
(And then returns for Season 3, because heβd be bored out of his wits eventually.)
For some of you, such as Social Democrats and libertarians who believe in limited government, I suppose this will be an easy answer.
But for AnCaps, AnComs, other far-left socialists and far-right minarchists, along with mutualists, do you really think society will ever reach a point where it will operate on the principles that you adhere to in your ideology? How would this society come about to begin with?
I've had my first dose of Pfizer, and the earliest I can get my second scheduled in my country (the UK) is 8 weeks. However, there's a good chance I can get it earlier at a pop up clinic - I'm keeping an eye out for sites in the coming weeks. There seems to have been lots of spare vaccines up for grabs (i.e. not taking away from anyone who needs a first dose).
However, I'm really conflicted on whether this is something I should do. It was my understanding that we had a gap of 12 weeks (now 8) purely because of a supply chain problem, i.e. to try to get as many first doses to as many people as possible.
I was advised to get both jabs in hospital because of my history of anaphylaxis, but it's my understanding that the advice on being supercautious has been superseded unless you're specifically allergic to any of the vaccine components (I'm not) and my first jab wasn't a disaster. I mean, I had a delayed allergic reaction, but it wasn't a biggie - I was able to control it with strong antihistamines. No medical intervention necessary.
I've found the study about how longer gaps might improve efficacy of the vaccine, but from what I can see, that was based on people aged 80+ and as I'm <40, I'm not sure whether those results can be extrapolated back to my situation.
What is the science leading me to do?
My options:
- Wait for a second jab at 8 weeks in a hospital with plenty of nurses, doctors and an emergency room next door. This is currently the earliest I am permitted to schedule a second jab.
- Get a second jab at 4 weeks+ in a pop up site. Not in a hospital, but with first aiders present and within each reach of a hospital by ambulance. This is the earliest I am permitted to attempt to get a walk in jab.
What would you do? Wait it out, or try to get an earlier jab at a non-hospital site?
Edit: Just edited to say a collective thanks to everyone who has replied - I do really appreciate it.
Iβm the director of a scattered site supportive housing program. Historically my program has been under almost 30k every year that gets scrambled to be spent in a month in a half. Iβm new to the position so this is my first year, but I get to have discretion over how the extra money is spent. Iβm still waiting for official numbers for the budget, but itβs somewhere around 30k again. Historically my predecessor just spent it all on furniture, and most of it is still sitting unused and boxed in our storage unit, so I said no to doing that this year. The grant ends at the end of July, and accounting is notoriously slow, so I will be pressed to spend all of this money at once in less than a month and a half. I want to improve client services, and also probably upgrade some things in the office for employee use. There are currently about 55 clients in the program. Hereβs my list so far (which is a drop in the bucket):
-Electronic medical alert service (hopsital discharges/admits)
-a/c and box fan for every client
-gift cards for clients/case managers to get needed items/coffee or lunch
-a large purchase of televisions/antenna/converter box for clients
-bulk order of mattresses/box springs/frames and maybe a few couches or chairs (the only furniture thatβs been all given out from previous years)
-subscription to mileage tracking app for staff
-a mural for our office
-new computers/tech equipment (we only have max 5 staff)
-inspect & have work done to an unused cargo van, expanding our fleet to 3 agency vehicles
-some sort of field trip/picnic with transportation included to maximize number of clients able to go with low barriers
-trainings (I already have some approved but they only add up to under $300 per staff member)
-reimbursement to landlords for repairs completed to properties (when client caused damage) instead of deducting from security deposit.
Any other ideas? Converselyβ what is some programming youβve seen for scattered site housing programs? My program used to have bowling nights/cooking classes/field trips etc when it first started, but has become stagnant and theyβve stopped for years now. Clients asked for it back, so I hope to include it in the budget for next year (and also avoid having to spend this much money at once againβ honestly what a waste and Iβm glad my predecessor quit).
So currently we have toilet for male, and toilet for female, or locker room for male and female etc. You get the idea. How would these kinds of spaces works if all genders are accepted? And what kind of labelling would the seperation based off, instead of male and female?
Title
Topic.
For me I'd say 6 weeks.
Gege said he wants fushiguro to create his ideal world m
