Hacker News Reader

> Women rights are one, with the new wave of feminism you can't really talk about it anymore without risking getting your head cut off in a media shitstorm, but that topic is generally of little consequence. We will eventually figure it out, even if it takes more time than needed, and everyone will be happy.

I think your post illustrated the problem when dealing with feminism: Everyone assumes it is of 'little consequence'.

But I think it is quite the contrary: It is directly and strongly affecting the relations between the genders/sexes. Regardless of whether you think what it proposes/does/wants/... is a good idea or not:

I think it is not a good idea to think it is just a small issue.

Economics similarly suffers.

Economists are the priests of a science twisted into religion.

The only way you will manage this situation is by fixing the rules so that properly taking care of the environment becomes a necessary condition to win the fucking election or make next Q3 sheet look good. It's not that hard, but indeed, will take time to seep in through democracies. For the election part, I can see that this is clearly happening already. For the Q3 sheet, we have a long way to go in some parts of the world, USA and China being on top of the list.

Extending human lifespan is the solution. Think about this.

If the number of people who save enough money for retirement is any indication, people don't even care about their future selves.

Exactly. If people lived for 10,000 years, thier entire outlook on climate change would change. Another reason companies like Google, Craig Venter and Genentech are working on extending human lifespan via researchers like Cynthia Kenyon and CalicoLabs.

No, exactly not. Right now people don't care about their financial situation forty years in the future. They also fuck up their future health with alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy food. What makes you think that they will care what happens with the ecosystem in a hundred years if they don't care whether they get cancer in thirty?

You can predict what happens to your savings forty years in the future?

Take eg. a person who had savings from twenty years in 1914's Germany. It would have all gone 10 years later. Likewise when you had savings in stocks in 1929. It took almost 30 years to recover.

You can predict it about as well as you can predict the climate I would say.

Increasing concentration of wealth makes that increasingly difficult for more and more people. At least some of the savings shortfall isn't by choice.