Speaking of death and a thousand year view too Western culture these two related references provide a unique Understanding of this very important topic.
The author always emphasized a thousand year view in everything that he considered. He also pointed out the modern West is trapped in a very diminished short-term understanding of time, and as such find it virtually impossible to vision/understand anything beyond one or two generations, or even the next election.
Mahayana Buddhism shifted the focus of the religious practice/path/goals from the monastic to the layperson, hence the centrality of the new concept of the bodhisattva and bodhisattva vow. There's no real hard accounts from when Shakyamuni was actually teaching, but given the Indian philosophy and mysticism of the era, it seems pretty hard to believe he wouldn't have emphasized that people become monastics over having children or being householders.
Really though, it's a bit mean-spirited to say people are foolish or naive not to have children for whatever outside reason we hear or deem an explanation. Sometimes people just have lots of trauma or anxieties which prevent them from having children, consciously even. Sometimes people want children but simply can't bring themselves. Sometimes people are unlucky (a whole generation or more, sometimes). Sometimes people are just miserable and don't want to raise children in a state they feel is dangerous or unfair. You never know. People tend to project how lucky they've been when discussing these topics, thinking it's the norm.
To be clear, I didn't say people are foolish or naive not to have children. I only heavily implied it.
I'm cognizant that not everyone can or should have kids. However, I'd argue that many people who think they shouldn't have kids actually should. For example, if you're anxious, having children will give you new, more practical anxieties to focus on ("How do I keep this creature alive?"), which will displace your old, existential ones ("What's the meaning of life?"). And if you're unlucky, having children will make you feel like the luckiest person in the world (even if you're not!).
In all seriousness, I support "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks," including spiritual seekers pursuing the monastic life. However, society does the majority a disservice by not emphasizing the benefits that the majority will gain from following the time-proven pathway to contentment: find a good partner, get married, have kids, read books, start a Substack, engage in comment threads.
None of this applies to ME however, I just want to make that clear, in case anybody took away a deranged assumption like that from my extremely hypothetical comment meant to balance out the post's ideas!!
The point is that in the short term, it was a politically expedient decision. Biden shored up the progressive wing of his party by checking off demographic boxes and also won the election. However, he could have also won the election (perhaps by a larger margin) with any number of other vice-presidential picks. Kamala Harris was hardly integral to his victory.
More importantly, as current events demonstrate, it would have been wiser to select a running mate best positioned to succeed a very old candidate. Harris's unpopularity and political weakness were no secret; they were made clear by the collapse of her campaign in the Democratic primary. By picking her regardless, Biden hurt his party (and if you believe Trump is a threat to democracy, America) in the long run.
Dude, I don’t know many progressives that were excited about CommaLa the Cop. She was a nasty and draconian AG that fucked a lot of vulnerable people for political purposes. If that’s the liability you’re referring to, it sounds like a center-right wet dream.
I'm referring to "checking off demographic boxes" in particular. See, for example, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/11/joe-biden-vp-pick-kamala-harris-393768: "Progressive groups also cheered Biden’s choice, with BlackPAC blasting out an email to supporters that read: 'IT’S KAMALA!' Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of the group, which had pushed Biden to select a Black woman as his running mate, went on to describe Harris as a 'fearless champion for American families.'"
I mean, that’s MSM sound bites feeding an identity politics narrative. Just because my news feed (especially a rag like politico that is essentially a DX tabloid at this point) says the monolithic group of a shared characteristic has a consensus, it must be true, right? All I’m saying is that the progressive left doesn’t revere Ms. Harris. Biden’s playbook of picking administration candidates based on their phenotypes instead of their accomplishments or qualifications is misguided. If we assume VP Harris is a charity pick because she’s brown, I can accept that. But if you’re telling me her candidacy has hurt the administration more than Biden’s rapid decline and frequent gaffes, I’m leery. I still see her as someone who has broader appeal than just checking the right boxes, and that’s a fairly tired argument, unless we’re talking about Biden’s platform. But I cannot agree she’s a progressive celebrity, much less a progressive politician. And her progressive bomifides make her a liability. It’s just not accurate. I mean, she’s still afraid of cannabis legalization. She worked with the DEA to raid California dispensaries and grow ops. This was in direct conflict with the state laws of California which she swore an oath to serve. Instead she sucked up the G men at the expense of her constituents literal freedom and constitutional rights, all for political optics. That is not Progressive.
I'm not arguing that she's "genuinely" progressive, though she certainly talks that language for political gain. I'm arguing that the left has been so overtaken by identity politics that phenotype serves as a symbol of progressive bonafides even if substance is lacking. For example, another article from the time (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-fitting-legacy-for-george-floyd-vice-president-kamala-harris/) called her candidacy "a fitting legacy for George Floyd."
The vice-presidential pick hasn't hurt the administration more than Biden's rapid decline. Rather, it has placed the Democratic party in its current bind, because the most obvious successor for a president is usually the vice president, but the vice president in this case has her own political liabilities. If you're picking the oldest presidential candidate in American history, you should pick the vice-presidential candidate with succession and electability, not identity, top of mind.
Many people expect - often correctly, judging statistically - that children's impressions about them will be mixed at best and their "care" may turn out to be worse than its absence. My best chance of having a legacy is writing a bunch of good scientific articles, which I plan to do anyway, not the long shot of injecting some semen into some woman, having her procure the baby, and then trying to educate it so that it doesn't turn out like 98% of population.
(I do want children on some level, but thinking that their desire is rational would be weird.)
Most of us cannot expect to leave good scientific articles as a legacy. And as esteemed as I'm sure your research is, it's statistically likely to be disproven and/or forgotten. Children remain the best bet for a legacy, even for the scientists among us.
Speaking of science, remember that nature is more important than nurture. Your child will be 50% like you regardless of similarities to or differences from the rest of the population. Will your child inherit your best half or your worst? Well, that's why you need to have more than one to even the odds.
Excellent piece of writing
Speaking of death and a thousand year view too Western culture these two related references provide a unique Understanding of this very important topic.
http://beezone.com/1main_shelf/death_message.html
http://beezone.com/whats-new
Also The Purpose of Death & What It Requires of Us
http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp
The author always emphasized a thousand year view in everything that he considered. He also pointed out the modern West is trapped in a very diminished short-term understanding of time, and as such find it virtually impossible to vision/understand anything beyond one or two generations, or even the next election.
Mahayana Buddhism shifted the focus of the religious practice/path/goals from the monastic to the layperson, hence the centrality of the new concept of the bodhisattva and bodhisattva vow. There's no real hard accounts from when Shakyamuni was actually teaching, but given the Indian philosophy and mysticism of the era, it seems pretty hard to believe he wouldn't have emphasized that people become monastics over having children or being householders.
Really though, it's a bit mean-spirited to say people are foolish or naive not to have children for whatever outside reason we hear or deem an explanation. Sometimes people just have lots of trauma or anxieties which prevent them from having children, consciously even. Sometimes people want children but simply can't bring themselves. Sometimes people are unlucky (a whole generation or more, sometimes). Sometimes people are just miserable and don't want to raise children in a state they feel is dangerous or unfair. You never know. People tend to project how lucky they've been when discussing these topics, thinking it's the norm.
To be clear, I didn't say people are foolish or naive not to have children. I only heavily implied it.
I'm cognizant that not everyone can or should have kids. However, I'd argue that many people who think they shouldn't have kids actually should. For example, if you're anxious, having children will give you new, more practical anxieties to focus on ("How do I keep this creature alive?"), which will displace your old, existential ones ("What's the meaning of life?"). And if you're unlucky, having children will make you feel like the luckiest person in the world (even if you're not!).
In all seriousness, I support "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks," including spiritual seekers pursuing the monastic life. However, society does the majority a disservice by not emphasizing the benefits that the majority will gain from following the time-proven pathway to contentment: find a good partner, get married, have kids, read books, start a Substack, engage in comment threads.
None of this applies to ME however, I just want to make that clear, in case anybody took away a deranged assumption like that from my extremely hypothetical comment meant to balance out the post's ideas!!
How was Kamala’s VP pick the most disastrous decision of the Biden campaign, when he won the election by the largest margin ever?
The point is that in the short term, it was a politically expedient decision. Biden shored up the progressive wing of his party by checking off demographic boxes and also won the election. However, he could have also won the election (perhaps by a larger margin) with any number of other vice-presidential picks. Kamala Harris was hardly integral to his victory.
More importantly, as current events demonstrate, it would have been wiser to select a running mate best positioned to succeed a very old candidate. Harris's unpopularity and political weakness were no secret; they were made clear by the collapse of her campaign in the Democratic primary. By picking her regardless, Biden hurt his party (and if you believe Trump is a threat to democracy, America) in the long run.
Dude, I don’t know many progressives that were excited about CommaLa the Cop. She was a nasty and draconian AG that fucked a lot of vulnerable people for political purposes. If that’s the liability you’re referring to, it sounds like a center-right wet dream.
I'm referring to "checking off demographic boxes" in particular. See, for example, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/11/joe-biden-vp-pick-kamala-harris-393768: "Progressive groups also cheered Biden’s choice, with BlackPAC blasting out an email to supporters that read: 'IT’S KAMALA!' Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of the group, which had pushed Biden to select a Black woman as his running mate, went on to describe Harris as a 'fearless champion for American families.'"
I mean, that’s MSM sound bites feeding an identity politics narrative. Just because my news feed (especially a rag like politico that is essentially a DX tabloid at this point) says the monolithic group of a shared characteristic has a consensus, it must be true, right? All I’m saying is that the progressive left doesn’t revere Ms. Harris. Biden’s playbook of picking administration candidates based on their phenotypes instead of their accomplishments or qualifications is misguided. If we assume VP Harris is a charity pick because she’s brown, I can accept that. But if you’re telling me her candidacy has hurt the administration more than Biden’s rapid decline and frequent gaffes, I’m leery. I still see her as someone who has broader appeal than just checking the right boxes, and that’s a fairly tired argument, unless we’re talking about Biden’s platform. But I cannot agree she’s a progressive celebrity, much less a progressive politician. And her progressive bomifides make her a liability. It’s just not accurate. I mean, she’s still afraid of cannabis legalization. She worked with the DEA to raid California dispensaries and grow ops. This was in direct conflict with the state laws of California which she swore an oath to serve. Instead she sucked up the G men at the expense of her constituents literal freedom and constitutional rights, all for political optics. That is not Progressive.
I'm not arguing that she's "genuinely" progressive, though she certainly talks that language for political gain. I'm arguing that the left has been so overtaken by identity politics that phenotype serves as a symbol of progressive bonafides even if substance is lacking. For example, another article from the time (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-fitting-legacy-for-george-floyd-vice-president-kamala-harris/) called her candidacy "a fitting legacy for George Floyd."
The vice-presidential pick hasn't hurt the administration more than Biden's rapid decline. Rather, it has placed the Democratic party in its current bind, because the most obvious successor for a president is usually the vice president, but the vice president in this case has her own political liabilities. If you're picking the oldest presidential candidate in American history, you should pick the vice-presidential candidate with succession and electability, not identity, top of mind.
That last paragraph is spot on.
Many people expect - often correctly, judging statistically - that children's impressions about them will be mixed at best and their "care" may turn out to be worse than its absence. My best chance of having a legacy is writing a bunch of good scientific articles, which I plan to do anyway, not the long shot of injecting some semen into some woman, having her procure the baby, and then trying to educate it so that it doesn't turn out like 98% of population.
(I do want children on some level, but thinking that their desire is rational would be weird.)
Most of us cannot expect to leave good scientific articles as a legacy. And as esteemed as I'm sure your research is, it's statistically likely to be disproven and/or forgotten. Children remain the best bet for a legacy, even for the scientists among us.
Speaking of science, remember that nature is more important than nurture. Your child will be 50% like you regardless of similarities to or differences from the rest of the population. Will your child inherit your best half or your worst? Well, that's why you need to have more than one to even the odds.
> Will your child inherit your best half or your worst? Well, that's why you need to have more than one to even the odds.
That's not how the odds work on that at all :D Like, it's not like my best and my worst come prepackaged into halves, they'll get some of both :D
Aim for the best possible ratio, let’s put it that way.