Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "Matt Walsh"
channel.
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) The position "both are wrong" is inherently flawed. It's either morally right to transfer wealth to kids before passing or not. If yes, then millenial guy is right to complain, if no, the his boomer dad is. Yes, morals are relative, but for different people, not inside your own worldview, so you have to pick a side.
2) Boomers did not earn their money by "working hard"(unless you mean chill 40h/week job is "hard work"), they did it by working when economic conditions were good and most of things were cheap but rising in price(like stocks and real estate).
3)Life is inherently unfair. Millenials just got screwed(same as for example people who fought in ww1), and it's up to society to decide if boomers will transfer their wealth to their kids(who are in their 40s) or to gen Z(who can use them, especially guys, to start their own families and have kids)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
10:08 yes and no. Firstly, I'll explain why "no". Technically, routine is unnatural, and seeking novelty is. For most of the history humans were hunter-gatherers and spent just around two hours a day searching for food. And it was the golden time for us(or actually we evolved to live like that and that's why it fits us so well). Even when we transitioned to agriculture, peasants rarely worked more than 6-7 hours a day even in summers(yes, they worked 7 days a week, but during winter they worked much less). The only time when humans worked more than now was for a short time at the beginning of industrial revolution. As for seeking of novelty, it've let us to spread through entire globe and colonize all the continents back in stone age.
One may ask "If being hunter-gatherer is so good, why did we transition to agriculture?" It definitely was not from a good life. The reason is that there was not enough space and food for everyone, and agriculture gave ability to support more people and maybe take neighbor's tribe land in future. Ted Kaczynski said that industrial revolution and its consequences were a disaster for human race. It is true, but in the same way transition to agriculture was. Imdustrial revolution just made it even worse. And I have no soothing words for you — you'll be forced to live such a drone lifestyle, be the cog in the industrial machine till the rest of your miserable life, and your children, and probably the children of your children will too. Try to find solace in the fact that in a hundred or a couple of hundred years humanity will invent genetic modification and finally "lobotomize" the majority of population except for the few rich, finally making life more bearable for the masses.
And now for why "yes". The thing is that all of this was absolutely inevitable. All living beings multiply exponentially, and humans spread with a finite speed on a certain level of technical progress. So it doesn't matter if earth was much bigger, even if it was infinite in all directions, even if it was like an infinite building going endlessly in three dimensions, or any finite amount of dimensions, the exponential growth of human population would still sooner or later outgrow the power function with which living space increases. In a certain way our sentience is a curse in itself, together with being a blessing. It makes us extremely strong as species, but also can easily bring us suffering
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1