> The library is meant to be noisy: It’s a lounge-like area with no walls or doors that is bisected by the hallway that traverses the building. And there are no shelves or books — all volumes are digital.
> Classrooms are organized like high-tech college lecture halls — no teacher has their own room. Instead, each teacher has a desk and a computer in a separate and small “collaboration” room.
I'm all for state of the art public and collaborative spaces. But I hope they make room for solitary reflection and individual study. As a student, the hours spent in the library stacks were invaluable. In my career, having a quite place to retreat throughout the day is sometimes the only thing that keeps me sane.
There is a little bit of a sleight of hand going on in this article by claiming the lifestyle of boomers is within reach, but then actually using boomers' parents and grand-parents as the standard. It would be more honest to say "Most of us can't have the relative wealth of our grand parents, but with some sacrifices and creativity, the lifestyle of our great-grand parents is attainable."
Even that is only true in a very narrow sense. My great-grand parents built a 600sqft house in a small town and lived their most of their lives. But they built that house right next to their parents. They lived within 5 miles of their combined 9 siblings. They were within half a mile of their church and half mile from the my great-grandfather's union hall. The town was small, but thriving, with multiple department stores downtown. My great-grandmother worked in two of them.
They did not isolate themselves into a dying town with few opportunities far away from their friends and family.
What millinials and zoomers are really struggling with is the hallowing out of the social and economic institutions that supported our collective wealth and well-being. These struggles may manifest as complaints about the individual ability to afford housing, healthcare, education, etc. But there are not individual solutions to these problems. They are structural.
The communities that they lived in were more self-sufficient and probably lived outside of the influence of large government or corporations or lobbying groups.
The flourishing town probably grew that way organically, not because of government support or because some company opened a big facility there.
It's true that land is more expensive now, but even if you could buy your own town and settle people on it, organic growth is basically illegal or impossible nowadays.
Coincidentally, there was an interesting article about the relationship between Massena and their power company here a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42992032
> What millinials and zoomers are really struggling with is the hallowing out of the social and economic institutions that supported our collective wealth and well-being.
It's multi-dimensional, not even limited to just that. We are living in a world of increased scarcity. The deleterious effects of an increasing population are very real. From a labor point of view, it's not just increased labor supply resulting in devaluation of said labor. There are tighter margins in the managerial and corporate level of things as well. Modern societies are complex things that attempt to cover all of their bases by inventing whole portions of economy through structured, financial support from the top down. This means that on a fundamental level, additional capital must be appropriated by the organizational arms of society, including the cost of labor to organize and implement such a thing to begin with, which further reduces margins for the managerial class and for the labor class. On top of that, these can be counted on to compound the effects of increased competition at all levels in the relevant industry through artificial flow of capital sustaining said competition that otherwise wouldn't exist. The idea is that more people, more labor, more value, win/win/win. But in practice, we're already burning a mind-boggling amount of entropy attempting to establish some sensible bare-minimum degree of equity. More labor just means a greater degree of a fake and "manually" structured economy to stop whole swaths of society from collapsing in on itself. It's not to say these systems of equity are bad, but they prop up an inflated population number and THAT reduces the relative importance (and thus power) of everyone as a result.
We also have to account for changing climates. Celestial systems aren't static in the slightest, and the status quo changes quite radically and quite frequently. We're currently living in an ice age. During a hot house period, the overwhelming majority of earth's surface ends up being about as habitable as mercury. Even without anthropogenic climate change (which probably just tipped the scales), the fact of the matter is that the climate changes by itself too. It wasn't that long ago that MENA was a lush, green paradise. Only 8000 years or so which is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket. At some point, we were going to enter another hot house period where only a couple coasts are habitable. Wanna guess what that's going to do to scarcity?
Of course, to whatever degree these things exist have no linear, predictable relationship with some single-value macro (or even micro) economic KPI. The highly chaotic system of society is full of nth degree causal feedback loops which are completely beyond prediction. There are nigh infinite more problematic effects of growing populations as a result, I can't hope to be exhaustive about it, or asterisk every permutation of these abstract causes and effects.
There's a lot of rhetoric to be found which assures and assuages that thermodynamics isn't real. There is no relationship between population and scarcity, or if it does exist, it's very minimal. We're not operating efficiently, and we need to do that before we start to examine the relationship between population numbers and quality of life. The convenient part that they leave out is what a society built around "efficiency" (in the sense that they mean) actually looks like. We already have places where humans live according to extreme principles of efficiency: Submarines. It really is efficient to live in bunk beds and eat in cafeterias. Not sure many people want to live like that though, so why the fuck are we trying to build such a world?
With truely unlimited time and resources, I would feel no need to prioritize important or impactful work.
I might spend 100 years customizing my desktop environment. Then another 100 years perfecting some niche internal software used exclusively by a small factory in South Dakota.
My version of spending a couple lifetimes meditating on a mountaintop.
Which is another reason it makes no sense to maintain/raise tax rates on the middle class while cutting taxes on the rich. This is burdensome for those paying while it adds very little to public coffers.
And transfers from China as well. The relevant section:
PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION.—On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the importation into the United States of artificial intelligence or generative artificial intelligence technology or intellectual property developed or produced in the People’s Republic of China is prohibited
I have ... concerns about how this information was found. Does anyone know the path to walk on the individual's website that gets you to the Word Press page?
> Classrooms are organized like high-tech college lecture halls — no teacher has their own room. Instead, each teacher has a desk and a computer in a separate and small “collaboration” room.
I'm all for state of the art public and collaborative spaces. But I hope they make room for solitary reflection and individual study. As a student, the hours spent in the library stacks were invaluable. In my career, having a quite place to retreat throughout the day is sometimes the only thing that keeps me sane.