The gulf countries are the closest thing to socialist states on the planet. Something like 70-90% of the citizenry of Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are employed by the public sector.
Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. The governance of that state, be it democratic, monarchical, or dictatorship of the proletariat, is a separate question.
By that definition, which again proves my point that you have no idea what socialism is, a king personally owning an entire country through the apparatus of the state would be socialist. Most socialists would reject that conclusion because ownership by a state isn't the same thing as ownership by society.
State ownership alone isn't sufficient. If a hereditary ruling family controls the state, then "state ownership" just means ownership by that ruling elite, not by society.
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. If there isn’t a way for regular people / “the proletariat” to influence the government, it’s not socialism because an autocratic government isn’t “the public”
> As it becomes possible to direct our own evolution as a species — and potentially even create a new species that surpasses us — we have to decide: How do we know to what extent it does make sense to transform ourselves using technology? What kinds of augmentation do we want, and what kinds do we absolutely not want? What do we wish, ultimately, to become? This is a moral question, even a spiritual one, and it demands a spiritual response.
Is it a spiritual question? We’re constantly transforming ourselves with technologies. Taking the most direct example, medicine, how many people considered it a spiritual question when they decided to start taking semaglutide or tirzepatide for weight loss? Or to take SSRIs?
I think the most likely outcome here is that people will continue to alter themselves to meet their immediate needs (hold a job, find love, stay healthy) without a lot of foresight or long term planning. This will likely lead to us increasing our own intelligence, it’s a useful capability across nearly every human endeavor. Whether or not this will happen at a pace that allows us to keep up with and retain control over artificial systems is the first big question, and what the relationship will be between augmented and unaugmented humans is the second. As a humanist, I hope we’re able to answer both questions in such a way that the fundamental dignity of all human beings is respected.
Why aren’t those all spiritual questions? They seem like it to me. Maybe not religious questions but at the very least they are questions which, if approached honestly, force you to grapple with what it means to be you.
The new morality must be that building a world of pleasure for humans is a good thing, as it will make people want to live in the world, instead of a suffering-based world that people will opt out of if robots do everything and suffering isn't necessary.
You could completely eliminate US defense spending and you would only be able provide every individual with roughly $3000 annually.
Also, your comparison to other countries is confounded by the fact that Western countries (i.e. Europe) maintain a low level of defense spending because they have an explicit guarantee of defense under the North Atlantic treaty and a promise of being covered by the US’s nuclear umbrella. If the US were to cut defense spending, other Western countries would need to substantially increase their own.
In a liberal society governed by laws, increased scrutiny must follow evidence of wrongdoing, not mere association. If European countries have problems with Musk’s conduct (lord knows I do) they should either pass legislation targeting behavior he has engaged in that is not already illegal, or charge him with a crime/bring a civil suit against him if he has violated existing law.
To be clear, this has already happened to some degree. See Paris prosecutors investigating him for the distribution of child pornography. But targeting companies he is affiliated with for his personal behavior violates the principle of the generality of law.
The damage the Women’s Health Initiative did to women’s health by conducting the flawed research that got HRT black boxed for twenty years really cannot be overstated. We went from a quarter of women being on estrogen replacement therapy post-menopause at the turn of the millennium to ~5% in 2020. A real case study in institutional failure.
At the time, there was also real concern about what that estrogen was doing to other people too, people around women who were on supplements. I used to be a competitive swimmer. There was a real debate in the 90s/2000s about how much of that estrogen was ending up in pool water. The question was whether it was healthy for children, boys and girls, to be literately swimming in a not-insignificant amount of supplemental estrogen. Testosterone patches were also an issue in pools, but they were much less common. With the change in treatment the debate is now largely moot.
The exposure for lap swimmers was significant. A competitive kid would regularly spend 10+ hours a week in that water (at my peak it was closer to 20+) not to mention the amount of water swallowed and inhaled as vapor/droplets.
There is a line in a Doctor Who episode (Torchwood?) where a character comments that he could recognize 20th century earth because he could taste estrogen in the rain. In real life, it was detected in rainwater.
If I remember correctly they linked it to breast cancer, causing all research and prescribing to basically disappear over night. It took 20 years before the study was revisited and the link dismissed.
I would absolutely purchase a robotic tool that brushes my teeth for me. I’m sure it would be much better I am at cleaning my teeth. I already use an electric toothbrush and a waterpik for exactly this reason.
I agree with you that tobacco is uniquely harmful, but smoking by itself is also bad by itself. Even exposure to smoke from campfires, if chronic, will elevate your risk for COPD, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, etc.
Smoking/smoke inhalation is not safe, it leads to all the bad outcomes you mention, and I encourage everyone to seek out alternatives like oral nicotine pouches and cannabis gummies. They will almost certainly improve your healthspan and may well improve your lifespan. I personally stopped smoking because my wife told me she wanted me around longer. I am all aboard the "smoking is bad for you" train.
But the role of the smoke itself is overemphasized which leads to a false sense of security. Switching from cigarettes to dip does lead to a significant improvement in mortality. But the real step change is moving to oral nicotine pouches, gum, patches, etc.
I'd also point out the risk from campfires and from cigarettes is not at all comparable. They are several orders of magnitude apart. Even smoking marijuana isn't nearly as dangerous as smoking tobacco. (Smoking marijuana is not safe, that just goes to show how ridiculously dangerous cigarettes are.)
If we’re being honest, highly agreeable, extroverted, conscientious, and non-neurotic people are simply going to be better suited to all forms of employment than the inverse. But, since personality is pretty durable, it’s easier to try and find a career where your weak spots are detriments, but not crippling.
I'm highly agreeable, and I've had to learn not to be. Knowing when to challenge people - "strategic non-agreeableness" - is extremely valuable. I've also made most of my career off being somewhat neurotic - I've described the core of my job as "finding things to panic about before they happen" (I went on Prozac a while back and caused an incident in the first couple weeks during uptake because my anxiety didn't trigger about something during a deploy). As far as extroversion - friends of mine who are genuine extroverts about went crazy during the pandemic, while I and a few other introvert friends got some of our best work ever done during that period. There's a spectrum - you can't be a misanthrope, but being able to take (and stand) quiet time to focus on a problem is absolutely an asset. With regards to conscientiousness, this often manifests in the workplace as an unwillingness to deviate from the plan when circumstances demand it and a preference for adding process as a kind of panacea for any kind of failure or delay, and at risk of offending the more conscientious among us, I have not found that a recipe for success.
I disagree a bit with the neuroticism and agreeableness being so obvious. There are many professions I would be TERRIBLE at precisely because I am so agreeable. And, I have real world experience with a business partner that is MUCH higher in neuroticism than I, and much less agreeable. Both sides of that spectrum have their strengths. We often have opposite approaches sometimes, but both can work, and one isn’t obviously better in all circumstances.
And introversion can be a wonderful asset in some professions as well.
However, I do agree that conscientiousness is probably pretty universally better.
There is research that suggests highly agreeable people do not do as well e.g. negotiation tactics. What is probably true is that is good to 'appear' agreeable. The same research suggests you are correct about the other 3 traits.
A highly agreeable housing inspector isn't going to be better at their job than a disagreeable housing inspector. I want my housing inspector to be harsh, unforgiving, and not grant the benefit of the doubt.
A highly extroverted person isn't going to make for a better overnight custodial worker than someone who prefers a more solitary lifestyle.
An actor who can tap into the emotional currents of high neuroticism in their work can offer a more sincere and authentic performance than an emotionally flat one.
Low conscientiousness correlates with risk taking and can be an asset in roles where over-planning to the detriment of acting can be costly - think firefighters.
I agree with this if what you mean is that employment generally requires conformity, passivity, accepting low autonomy, low creativity, etc. Otherwise, this isn't my experience.
reply