In my experience, in the US, harmful chemicals in products are a lot more credible than climate change, to people who listen to the Right. An example that has been in the news: pregnant women taking Tylenol.
For whatever reason, a “natural” lifestyle is more compatible with American conservative politics than an environmentally responsible lifestyle. I think the two can easily overlap, but the former would have to emphasized for it to get any traction with that audience.
EDIT: Replace “for whatever reason” with “due to the influence of the fossil fuel industry”
Agreed. If I weren't a computer nerd I probably wouldn't feel this way, but on Linux I feel more empowered. Even if there are more things to tweak/fix (which is not necessarily true these days), there IS probably a way to do it.
On MacOS, I more often have to give up and live with the annoyances.
Hardware is the the big exception. None of my PCs have had nearly as good build quality or battery life (on Linux, at least) as a Macbook. Maybe I should try a Framework.
> If I weren't a computer nerd I probably wouldn't feel this way, but on Linux I feel more empowered
There are also more footguns and rabbit holes. Overall, I am about as happy with Linux than with macOS (I use both daily), but I would not say that one is really more empowering than the other.
I like tinkering with KDE but it’s full of inconsistencies and instability in a way than even the worst Finder I’ve used was not (e.g. the whole desktop freezing when adding a widget to the desktop with a brand new install). Never mind the Russian roulette that is updating nVidia’s drivers.
On the other hand on macOS it’s easier to get to things that are actually productive.
To take one of your examples, high school graduation rates vary from ~25% to ~98% in U.S. school districts. It's not because some districts have a lot more virtuous young people, but because some districts are poor and others are wealthy, among other factors. Even if one of those factors is virtuous parents, kids can't choose their parents.
I'm not denying our moral agency, but it is often constrained by environment. Some people are lucky enough that virtuous choices are easier for them.
People in all western countries can do all of these things without much difficulty. We can go off the theory that you are just as likely to have a successful life if you drop out of school, have children with many women and/or absent fathers, and not get a permanent job — but there is no data to support any of those claims, and we have been running this experiment for decades now with nothing getting better.
How are then countries which are poorer than the USA ranking higher in education?
I completely reject the notion that wealth is at all a factor in the intelligence or educational success of a child. Wealth is just a correlation. Neither does national educational systems or policies have more than a tiny effect on education success.
What matters for educational success is the genetical and cultural material of the children. If they are born smart, or are brought up in families who value intelligence or brought up in cultures which value intelligence. Even poverty and schooling become small factors if the child has any of these foundations.
No, but a few of those poor kids see the claim change their life instead of following their parents examples and those kids tend to do well. We see this most in immigrants where the parents come with nothing and barely get by but their kids despite going to the same bad schools do well
Adsolutely. I agree that our lives aren't determined by family background, and we can draw on many other resources, both within ourselves and from other people besides family.
If I overstated my point, it's only because I was pushing back against the idea that education, employment, and a traditional family are equally attainable by all, and if someone has failed in any of these areas, it's because they lack virtue compared to other people (many of whom had more advantageous starting points in life, but supposedly that doesn't matter).
Or in simpler terms, "poor people are poor because they're bad and they deserve it". It's a sentiment that's been very useful for the ultra-wealthy class, and detrimental to everyone else, not just the poor.
Education, employment, and traditional family are useful things to work with though. They give a direction to try to get the poor to go. We can ask questions on how we can get their kids to go to school and study. We can ask questions about how we can get them acceptable jobs. We can ask how we can get them into stable family situations. We will fail a lot, but it gives us a proven framework to work towards. Yes there are problems - I'm not advocating live with a spouse who abuses you - but we can ask how we can stop that abuse as well.
Now there are many traditions around the world that works. Most cultures have man+women=family (as opposed to some form of polygamy), and there is reason to suspect this is important even if it isn't "in" to study why. (it isn't clear which non-traditional forms also would be fine and which would be a disaster)
Saying "poor are poor because they deserve it" is an accusation that I hear a lot more than I hear people who believe it. Some do believe it, but most accused of it do not and have better explinations of why they do things that the accusers don't like.
I agree that these are useful frameworks. When I said they're not equally attainable by all, I meant that for people who are better off, these things can sort of just fall in their lap, whereas poor people more often have to struggle for them. I know I'm saying something that is common sense, but I just wanted to make the point that inspiring people to be more virtuous is great, but a lot of people face material and psychological obstacles which make attaining these things "without much difficulty" (quoting the parent commenter) not very realistic. I think we agree there.
Not many people would openly say that poor people deserve to be poor. Those aren't the words that the parent commenter used, and maybe that wasn't even the intention. But this line of thinking can encourage people who feel this way, by giving their feelings a moral justification.
All I mean is, we should be empathetic toward people who have fewer resources than we do, and not be too quick to credit our accomplishments to our virtuous living.
The relationship of the Bible to history is complicated. I recommend the “Pete Ruins ____” episodes of The Bible for Normal People podcast, which is fun but also grounded in the academic field of biblical studies. Here’s the first one for Genesis, where the historical aspects are especially complex and interesting: https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-277-pete-enns-pe...
Thank you for your honesty. What you said about tossing people aside for lack of time resonates with my experience in and after college.
Recently I reconnected with someone who was a close friend early in college, before I switched to "I don't have time to hang out" mode. It turns out my friend also recently started slowing down after a hectic early career, and was open to reconnecting. It's not the same as back then—for one thing, we live in different states and can only occasionally visit each other in person. But still, it feels like something in me is patched up, even if not perfectly whole, which the busy years had torn apart. (Therapy has also helped a lot.)
I don't want to assume anything about your situation, but if there is anyone from college that you did have a meaningful connection with back then, and if you're willing to risk the disappointment of finding that they are now too busy / not interested, you could try getting in touch with them to catch up. It could be that they too are done with their hectic years and looking to connect with people more. Maybe you've already tried this, but I'm mentioning it in case you haven't.
Author here. I'm sorry to hear that. I've heard similar struggles from other experienced folks, and I get the impression that companies have been less eager to hire for upper-level positions such as staff or architect, relative to plain senior roles.
I've added a note near the top of my post clarifying that the "early-career" of the title is only because I'm speaking from my own experience.
