Worth reminding folks of the unspoken assumption that work is good. We need other avenues of community involvement.
Some of the values younger people are turning to today are hopeful. http://www.generation-online.org/p/fp_bifo5.htm
Some of the values younger people are turning to today are hopeful. http://www.generation-online.org/p/fp_bifo5.htm
- Men and women can and should fulfill the same roles in society, a perfect society is one where we have a 50/50 ratio in everything.
- There is nothing we can do about culture/religion, if anything, it is an insignificant factor.
- Economic models work the same everywhere.
- As long as things are relatively stable, they will remain stable, provided we make small incremental improvements.
- Politics still has the same power to change society as it did in the past, and politicians know what they are doing.
- We understand the effects of technology.
just my 50 ¢.
The reasonable take on gender equality is to remove the social obstacles that prevent sufficiently motivated women from climbing to the top of the corporate ladder, or sufficiently motivated men from committing themselves to nurturing their families, as one example. Gender equality is simply the expansion of choice via elimination of constraints generated by too-rigid gender identities.
Let me see.
Laws requiring 30% of election candidates be women? check. University quotas? Check. Arguments about "not enough women in <insert random profession here>" because it is not 50% split? Check.
I guess your "No one reasonable is advocating for a mandated perfect 50/50 split." phrase is true, specially the reasonable part, it seems most politicians are unreasonable.
Except for politics, can't be bad at having an opinion ;) Or jobs that any human should be able to perform.
My only prerequisite is that no one should assume what my role should me. Lady wants to be a housewife? Awesome. I want to be an engineer? Awesome. All we need is to reduce barriers to that opportunity which I agree to close to complete in America.
I've never heard anyone advocate for a 50/50 split.
What happens instead is that anything that isn't a 50/50 split is assumed to be proof that there are barriers, that someone is telling you what your role should be, etc.
It's lazy thinking, combined with political expediency.
- The same economic model is valid for all markets
Its pretty amazing that Betrand Russel recognized the role of leisure back in his time, when productivity was still not as high as it is today. I imagine that is why he argues for a 4 hour workday, instead of the more radical UBI.
school (n.1) Look up school at Dictionary.com "place of instruction," Old English scol, from Latin schola "intermission of work, leisure for learning; learned conversation, debate; lecture; meeting place for teachers and students, place of instruction; disciples of a teacher, body of followers, sect," from Greek skhole "spare time, leisure, rest ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;"
All of those 'avenues of community involvement' are work by this definition. The only problem is if we only define work as something someone is willing to trade their own resources for.... some things are valuable, but don't fit into the realm of something people would pay for (for lots of reasons, in particular if they are public goods that are non exclusionary)
Our current system of markets determining what work is only is applicable for a subset of the things that are valuable to humanity; we use it because it is the best proxy we have at the moment. We need a better proxy in the future.
In other words I agree, I just worry that the people correctly advocating for a cultural devaluation of "work" as an intrinsic good, and possibly for UBI, may also be overlooking people's need for occupation. While it's not an immediate concern, we should still be careful not to advocate for a system which makes meaningful occupation a purely opt-in option that requires significant self-motivated effort. Not everyone will think to opt in or be motivated enough to follow through, and while those people will not suffer from material deprivation they will still suffer, and destabilise and delegitimise the system we're working to achieve.
"1. We want to sing of the danger of love, the daily creation of a sweet energy that is never dispersed.
2. The essential elements of our poetry will be irony, tenderness and rebellion."
vs.
"1. We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness.
2. Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry."
By any measure of thumos [0], they are incomparable.