I think part of it is our distance to death. People don't die at home anymore. They die in the hospital, or in a retirement home. Or alone. They don't die at home, in the circle of friends and family as it used to be. It may sound odd and creepy, but it isn't. People die. That's part of life. We try to pretend it isn't, but face it: The only thing certain in your life is that you will die.
Birth rates of rich people would grind to a halt, why would I want to raise a heir if I don't plan to die and have to hand my fortune down to someone? I wouldn't raise a heir, I would raise a potential rival, not to mention someone who has a reason to kill me.
I've seen two grandmothers, a grandfather and a great-grandmother get old.
No.
I won't.
I've seen the end.
People who want to "get old" usually never see what it really means. In the end, if you're lucky you get dementia so you don't notice the total loss of any semblance of dignity anymore.
Operation A: A 20 year old with a life threatening disease that can be cured in 6 months that lets him be productive another 40 years.
Operation B: A 80 year old with a life threatening disease that can be cured in 6 months that lets him be... alive (ok, more or less) another 10 years.
By the time this can be applied to the general population, I am hopefully dead. I don't want to see that epic fight when 20 billion people battle over resources that would be enough to carry maybe 5.
Sorry, was channeling my inner VC. I'm a security consultant and penetration tester, forging personalities is part of the deal when you're hired for social engineering.
That's because they use a different reasoning than you do. VCs don't care whether a product someone promises works. That's not the business they're in. What they care about is whether they can eventually sell their share of the company for more than they put in. That's all. That may well mean to invest into a company that you know will never produce anything, as long as you also know that it will be bought by a rival before they'd have to fold and admit that they never had a product to begin with.
Yes, that's a big gamble. But that's the business they're in.
Essentially, VCs don't know what they invest in. They are basically running a risk-reward game. They run statistics on your proposed company and if it shows enough promise, they will actually even accept a higher risk.
VCs are statistics driven. Nothing else. You think your sales pitch sells your product? Wrong. Your sales pitch only tells him just how much of a salesperson you actually are and whether you can convince some idiot to buy your shit, and how much you actually believe in it yourself, whether you have yourself "bought in" or whether you're just doing what he does: Not giving half a shit about your product and only want a lot of money out of it. Because that's not what he needs. That's what he is. He needs someone who would ride this product to the end even if it doesn't look promising for a while.
That's all your sales pitch does. The rest is statistics. Rest assured that there is actually some performance figure for "number of men" and "number of women" on the team. Yes, it's sexist. But the whole process is an -ism.
You want to bet that there's also figures for "how many blacks", "how many Jews", "how many $ethnicity"? You bet there is. I wouldn't even doubt that there is one for "how many gays".
They are essentially trying to put crystal ball reading onto scientific legs. And you really expect them to not run statistics on even the most ridiculous metric? Seriously?
Not to mention that companies will put up a female figurehead for the fed money. Don't think so? How many have hired the "quota ni...er" to get grants?
Maybe they are less effective at choosing projects that VCs consider profitable? It would be interesting to see a comparison of the projects the VCs funded and which they rejected, and whether there is more to it than "a woman on the team".
Sorry to break it to you, but people's money is theirs, and they, not you, get to decide what they spend it on and what they invest in. It is not their business to be "fair" or to "promote equality", unless this is what they want to do with their money. If it is your agenda, you're absolutely free to use your money to do just that.
Why would I give a fuck whether the guy burns out after he tripled my money?
Burn-out happens somewhere between 5 to 10 years into the whole shit. By that time my investment has either paid off or it never will, and I'm off to the next project. With a hint of bad luck that woman is pregnant next year, before she can even double my investment.
This is true for so many things we do, should we outlaw them all? Just look around yourself, how many people lead an unhealthy lifestyle, eating too much and too fatty, sugary, stuffing their face with garbage disguised as food. Should we outlaw everything that might be unhealthy for you? What about hobbies that might lead to you getting hurt or worse? Should we outlaw any sport but, say, golf, where at best some 80 year old geezer might have a heart attack? Should we ban alcohol, too, because it eliminates inhibitions people might have against hurting someone. Not to mention that it makes people careless. Why not ban guns while we are at it, how many people get killed by... no wait, that's unconstitutional. But there's nothing in the constitution about eating, sports and booze, so we can outlaw that.
So... we'll be a nation of people whose only allowed pastime outside of stamp collecting will be shooting stuff.
Yes, I exaggerate, but by how much? Which of the things that people do because they consider them exciting, fun or otherwise interesting is not "unhealthy enough" to warrant a ban?
Slashdot Mirror
Neither do I.
But then again, I was already in really bad shape when I was 16...
I think part of it is our distance to death. People don't die at home anymore. They die in the hospital, or in a retirement home. Or alone. They don't die at home, in the circle of friends and family as it used to be. It may sound odd and creepy, but it isn't. People die. That's part of life. We try to pretend it isn't, but face it: The only thing certain in your life is that you will die.
Everything else is optional.
Birth rates of rich people would grind to a halt, why would I want to raise a heir if I don't plan to die and have to hand my fortune down to someone? I wouldn't raise a heir, I would raise a potential rival, not to mention someone who has a reason to kill me.
I've seen two grandmothers, a grandfather and a great-grandmother get old.
No.
I won't.
I've seen the end.
People who want to "get old" usually never see what it really means. In the end, if you're lucky you get dementia so you don't notice the total loss of any semblance of dignity anymore.
If that means that we improve from today's "Live to 60, ail to 80 when you finally die" to "live to 80 and die", sign me up.
If it just means "live to 65, ail to 100 when you beg for a mercy killing", please don't do that to me. What have I done to you to deserve this?
Where's the big deal about this, I ask you. What the fuck is the problem?
Operation A: A 20 year old with a life threatening disease that can be cured in 6 months that lets him be productive another 40 years.
Operation B: A 80 year old with a life threatening disease that can be cured in 6 months that lets him be ... alive (ok, more or less) another 10 years.
You might be able to see the difference here?
By the time this can be applied to the general population, I am hopefully dead. I don't want to see that epic fight when 20 billion people battle over resources that would be enough to carry maybe 5.
You call it rude, for them it's just business.
You are statistical value. If you're lucky, you're an asset. But that "human" thing never enters the equation.
Sorry, was channeling my inner VC. I'm a security consultant and penetration tester, forging personalities is part of the deal when you're hired for social engineering.
Watching them play I have to say that mental deficits are probably a prerequisite to wanting to play this professionally.
Ok, that we can agree on. It would. Not that it should.
That's because they use a different reasoning than you do. VCs don't care whether a product someone promises works. That's not the business they're in. What they care about is whether they can eventually sell their share of the company for more than they put in. That's all. That may well mean to invest into a company that you know will never produce anything, as long as you also know that it will be bought by a rival before they'd have to fold and admit that they never had a product to begin with.
Yes, that's a big gamble. But that's the business they're in.
Essentially, VCs don't know what they invest in. They are basically running a risk-reward game. They run statistics on your proposed company and if it shows enough promise, they will actually even accept a higher risk.
VCs are statistics driven. Nothing else. You think your sales pitch sells your product? Wrong. Your sales pitch only tells him just how much of a salesperson you actually are and whether you can convince some idiot to buy your shit, and how much you actually believe in it yourself, whether you have yourself "bought in" or whether you're just doing what he does: Not giving half a shit about your product and only want a lot of money out of it. Because that's not what he needs. That's what he is. He needs someone who would ride this product to the end even if it doesn't look promising for a while.
That's all your sales pitch does. The rest is statistics. Rest assured that there is actually some performance figure for "number of men" and "number of women" on the team. Yes, it's sexist. But the whole process is an -ism.
You want to bet that there's also figures for "how many blacks", "how many Jews", "how many $ethnicity"? You bet there is. I wouldn't even doubt that there is one for "how many gays".
They are essentially trying to put crystal ball reading onto scientific legs. And you really expect them to not run statistics on even the most ridiculous metric? Seriously?
What do you mean "soon"? I am wondering just that.
If you want to get pregnant, fine, but leave me out of it!
I stopped at "patriarchy". Ya know, it triggers me, you could at least have included a trigger warning!
Not to mention that companies will put up a female figurehead for the fed money. Don't think so? How many have hired the "quota ni...er" to get grants?
You bet they do.
Maybe they are less effective at choosing projects that VCs consider profitable? It would be interesting to see a comparison of the projects the VCs funded and which they rejected, and whether there is more to it than "a woman on the team".
Why this is informative? Because it is.
Sorry to break it to you, but people's money is theirs, and they, not you, get to decide what they spend it on and what they invest in. It is not their business to be "fair" or to "promote equality", unless this is what they want to do with their money. If it is your agenda, you're absolutely free to use your money to do just that.
Welcome to Capitalism.
Why would I give a fuck whether the guy burns out after he tripled my money?
Burn-out happens somewhere between 5 to 10 years into the whole shit. By that time my investment has either paid off or it never will, and I'm off to the next project. With a hint of bad luck that woman is pregnant next year, before she can even double my investment.
In my experience, it usually does. If something really is a fact, there is usually little reason to stress it.
Ok, care to explain to us how the man could get pregnant instead? If you can solve that problem, I bet a Nobel Prize is in reach.
Not to mention that you'd have a huge impact on abortion laws.
I agree, but every time I call them chicks I get hit by the bitches.
This is true for so many things we do, should we outlaw them all? Just look around yourself, how many people lead an unhealthy lifestyle, eating too much and too fatty, sugary, stuffing their face with garbage disguised as food. Should we outlaw everything that might be unhealthy for you? What about hobbies that might lead to you getting hurt or worse? Should we outlaw any sport but, say, golf, where at best some 80 year old geezer might have a heart attack? Should we ban alcohol, too, because it eliminates inhibitions people might have against hurting someone. Not to mention that it makes people careless. Why not ban guns while we are at it, how many people get killed by... no wait, that's unconstitutional. But there's nothing in the constitution about eating, sports and booze, so we can outlaw that.
So... we'll be a nation of people whose only allowed pastime outside of stamp collecting will be shooting stuff.
Yes, I exaggerate, but by how much? Which of the things that people do because they consider them exciting, fun or otherwise interesting is not "unhealthy enough" to warrant a ban?
In Soviet Russia, it sure does!