[moate]

Woof. That is a flaming hot take my friend. Allow me to counter: We no longer require children to produce labor for our living. This allows for all sorts of different outcomes. Some good (more time for education in a wider variety of matters, development of different social skills, etc) some bad (less time focused on the development of "cause to effect" production education, more sedentary lives, etc).

Some parents are bad parents. Some people on simple 3rd world farms abuse their children. Some people in developed metropolises focus on teaching their children to learn and enjoy life. The world is changing, and it's generally a mixed bag. You want to call it sad and depressing, that's fine, do you. I don't see it so cynically.

As the saying goes: You take the good, you take the bad, and then you have...the facts of life.

[4b11b4]

The perspective which is open to seeing the "good" and the "bad" is usually closer to seeing the "truth".

However, your open perspective does not necessarily counter the original comment.

from the original comment: "Yes, we live in a sad world that we don’t know anymore what will happen if one day markets are no longer an option."

If you remove the word sad, would you refute that statement? Yes, there are good and bad things about industrialization. For example, more time for children for things like education. But there are also many terrible things.

[imgabe]

The lesson here is that everything comes with tradeoffs. Want to live in a an industrialized society and enjoy all the benefits that brings? Things like, modern medicine, indoor plumbing, independence from weather cycles for food? Well, yeah you're probably going to give up knowing how to live off the land. If your society collapses, you might not know how to survive. Most people view that as an acceptable risk.

That's not to say you can't learn those things even if you live in a modern society, but it takes some effort.

[perl4ever]

Many of the first Europeans attempting to colonize North America starved/froze to death until they utilized the knowledge of the people who were already living here. So I think the omni-competence that people like to believe in from living closer to nature doesn't actually exist.

[derefr]

That's a fun point: we aren't differentiated eukaryotic cells in an organism, each fixed in our purpose. We're humans with malleable brains that can—if some disaster befalls us—respond by finding the people with the specialized disaster-response knowledge and learning from them. We don't have to pre-load the compendium of all human knowledge into every human; we can just communicate skills as they become needed.

[moate]

>>we live in a world that we don’t know anymore what will happen if one day markets are no longer an option

Still don't agree with it in any real way. "We live in a world we don't know anymore" is the story of human history. Change is the only constant and all that (yea yea, "industrial revolution", "everything is happening so fast", yadda yadda.)

IDK what "What will happen if one day markets are no longer an option" is supposed to mean? Like, global collapse and we can't buy things at the store? Then it's a global collapse and everything is fucked. The situations that would lead to me needing to know how to make my own tools and farm my own land and fight off gangs of raiders coming for my water and women aren't worth worrying about. You can't plan for "the whole of society as you know it collapses" without knowing specifically what would be replacing your society.

Dude was trying to say that he feels his unique experience is good and his values are good and he sees a society that doesn't respect those skills and values. I believe that is his view. I don't share it. These two things can both exist simultaneously because they're just opinions.