It's a first world hill to die on, and many of the people who espouse veganism are only able to do so because of their own privilege.
It's a combination of smugness and "I'm better than you" and the lack of awareness that everyone had and continues to benefit from a world that has always used animal products. The Industrial Revolution basically ran on steam engines and leather belts, for example.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that using fewer animal products and eating less meat is a good idea. I also recognize that feeding the world's growing population is probably going to involve insects being more widely used as a food source.
Maybe they mean privilege wrt education? As i understand it, it takes a non-zero amount of knowledge about nutrition to substitute meat completely and not be deficient in something. But I'm a life-long omnivore so I may be wrong
There's also the privilege of living in a location where vegan alternatives are readily and frequently available, vast swaths of the US are in what's known as "food deserts", locations where "residents’ access to affordable, healthy food options (especially fresh fruits and vegetables) is restricted or nonexistent due to the absence of grocery stores within convenient traveling distance" (https://foodispower.org/access-health/food-deserts/) these locations also tend to have high obesity or diabetes rates due to the fact that the only food easily and cheaply available is high in sugar. Add in things like the increased price for even simple vegan foods (like rice and beans) and you might be starting to see the picture, as much as some people would LIKE to be vegan it is literally not possible for them without either taking on substantial additional costs or completely upending their life.
A lot of the reason people who are otherwise pro-vegan (like myself) tend to dislike online vegans is that they will, consistently and smugly, while in a location and economic position where its easier to get vegan options, berate people for eating animal products without ever considering the possibility that its MUCH harder to get non-animal product based foods in certain areas
A lot of people online will also point to food deserts in other parts of the country as a reason they, living within 20 minutes of 5 different grocery stores, personally won't make any changes.
Food deserts aren't just places where there aren't grocery stores, they also include places where there are abundant stores but fruits, veggies, and other vegan or healthy options cost drastically more, for example, there are parts of New York City considered to be food deserts because all the healthy options are too expensive for someone on a low income to reliably afford, forcing them to go for unhealthy, but cheaper options. This is something that, to the credit of whoever is in charge of the NYC health department, the city has been working on solving, doing things such as incentivizing "Green Carts", food carts with affordable healthy options like vegetables and fruits.
Also consider, you don't know too much about that person's life, maybe they live in a non-food desert location but have to travel frequently via car through food deserts, maybe they have to move a food desert in the future, maybe they have a dietary restriction preventing them from accessing several of those healthy vegan options, so they have to supplement their diet by using animal products.
Also, in my experience, most 'anti-vegans' tend to have no idea what a food desert is, the normal excuse is nutrients or iron intake, most of the non-vegans I've talked to that even know about food deserts have either tried to go vegan and found it too hard to do while also keeping up with their health and finances or work in an industry directly combating food deserts, just something to consider.
Those aren't the vegans that most people are talking about. Being poor and having to eat vegan is different from being vegan because you want to stand out from everyone else with your vegan black bean soy burger with vegan cheese on a vegan sprouted whole wheat bun. If you can afford the overpriced "vegan" versions of typically non-vegan foods, and complain about your struggles being vegan, that's privilege.
When you're poor, you don't advertise the fact that you're eating vegan. You just make rice and beans because it's the absolute cheapest food available. You'll take meat and non-vegan when it's available. But at the very least, you'll survive on rice and beans. It's generally not something that people are proud of.
You just make rice and beans because it's the absolute cheapest food available. You'll take meat and non-vegan when it's available. But at the very least, you'll survive on rice and beans.
This. When I was poor af and regularly using the food bank they'd give venison periodically, and that was my favorite part of the boxes. That and this rice and seasoning meals went together amazingly and would last me like a week of meals.
You're making a big assumption here by saying that all vegans are buying vegan substitutes like Beyond Burgers. And I mean very big, since all the vegans I know don't eat that stuff or buy it occasionally as a treat, or at a restaurant. Most of my meals are simple with rice, noodles, curry paste, and some vegetables. They can even be frozen or canned to reduce preparation time.
The implication is that this is common. I don't think even one vegan is vegan just to show off some kind of privelege. This is just a childish and unrealistic caricature that does not exist in reality.
I didn't say that. I said if you're buying the vegan substitutes and advertising that fact, that makes you privileged. I've seen it many times. There are even some in this post. People that eat vegan because they have limited choices don't advertise it. People that want to feel superior over others will express how much of a vegan they are.
People aren't vegan through limited choice. It's a conscious decision. You might eat a plant-based diet because you can't afford meat, but that doesn't make you the same as someone who is choosing not to eat meat on purpose. You're comparing someone who wants to be vegan with someone who doesn't and saying one is superior/less annoying. They're two different people.
Congratulations, you're finally getting it. They are two different people. There are people that eat vegan because they have no choice. Those people are not privileged. There are people that call themselves vegan and make sure everyone knows they are vegan. Those are the vegans the original comment was talking about, which someone took offense to. That's why I pointed out the difference.
It took a little effort, but at least you got there.
Am I privileged if I can afford to eat Beyond Burgers every night but I eat rice and beans instead? What if I can't afford those things, still eat rice and beans, but I tell people I'm vegan to avoid awkward social interactions? You're making up a caricature of vegans in your head, comparing them to poor people who happen to not be able to afford meat, and then saying the latter is somehow a better person.
The option you presented is a poor non-vegan person vs. a wealthier vegan person. There are people in between these two things.
What if I can’t afford those things, still eat rice and beans, but I tell people I’m vegan to avoid awkward social interactions?
But would you? Would you really turn down free food simply because you're vegan? Would you really tell people you're vegan to avoid an "awkward social interaction" when offered free food? If so, that makes you privileged. Being able to pick and choose food makes you privileged, whether it's vegan or not. That's the difference.
Everyone is more privileged than someone. It's obviously more privileged to be able to eat fresh vegetables vs. people having to eat bark in occupied countries. But most serious vegans will also tell you that if you're on a desert island and your only way to survive is to kill and eat a pig (as ridiculous as the scenario is), you should do it, because we acknowledge self-preservation is real and valid.
Wow...so you've been so poor that you can only afford rice and beans, and you've been offered free food that you turned down because it wasn't vegan? Really? See, that's the kind of smugness OP was talking about. You put your veganism above securing food, and you're proud of it. You willingly sacrificed your self-preservation for your principles. And now you're advertising it.
You literally asked me the question and are now chastising me for my answer. This is the "how do you know someone is vegan" joke. I pointed out self-preservation to point out that vegans don't go around attacking poor people and don't expect people to keep their principles in those situations. I made a choice I don't expect other people to make. I point my criticisms at the people I know in real life who shop at the exact same stores I do and make similar amounts of money, but still use poor people as an excuse not to change their own behavior.
You literally asked me the question and are now chastising me for my answer.
Yes, because you claim to be poor yet still call being vegan a lifestyle choice. And you chastise others in your position for not making that choice. Poor people don't get to make those choices. Poor people do whatever it takes to survive. Poor people live on that desert island every single day and have to make difficult decisions. Poor take whatever they can get and are greatful for it. Poor people don't have the privilege to turn down food.
Maybe begin to recognize your own privilege before telling other people what to do.
I think you are a deeply unserious person who idolizes poverty by saying vegans making the choice are bad and people forced into are good. I also think, based on this conversation, that you hold no strong convictions that can't be shaken out of you with a little bit of hardship and can't contextualize any amount of self-sacrifice because of your obsession with veganism being a privileged position. I already told you that people who have no other option are not a target of criticism, but people like you who who use others as a scapegoat certainly are. I'm blocking you now though because this is going nowhere.
I pointed out self-preservation to point out that vegans don’t go around attacking poor people and don’t expect people to keep their principles in those situations. I made a choice I don’t expect other people to make.
Then literally the very next sentence, you contradict yourself.
I point my criticisms at the people I know in real life who shop at the exact same stores I do and make similar amounts of money, but still use poor people as an excuse not to change their own behavior.
You claim to be poor, claim to not attack people who are poor, then chastise people who are poor for not making the same choices that you do. You are a hypocrite. Have a nice day.
Vegan: no animal products. No butter, no eggs, having to be well-informed (as others have stated) and know about the content of every bit of everything you buy, and making choices on that basis instead of on cost.
Even then, how many of the products you buy and use every day have depended on animal products for their manufacture? I'm willing to bet that a fair amount of human labor consumes and uses animal products to sustain themselves, even if there are no animal products in the thing you're buying. I don't think it's fair to compartmentalize that away from purchasing decisions. The people who put your flat pack MDF furniture in a box, did they have a chicken sandwich on their lunch break? The people who are paving the roads and maintain the rails on which the products you ultimately buy, are they wearing leather boots?
Everyone depends, to some degree or another, on the use of animal products, either as food or for some other purpose. Even vegans.
Edit: Like I said above, reducing dependence on animal products is probably a good idea, but people who believe they have eliminated their dependence on animal products are patting themselves on the back for something they simply cannot accomplish.
Being Vegan is a choice for yourself so it's a fallacy to argue that others are not Vegan, and saying it doesn't help to try to make a difference unless everybody does it is also a fallacy.
So the argument is based on no less than 2 obvious fallacies. This should be pretty obvious, so question is if you are just a troll?
I'll say that this reaction does nothing to make me think you are approaching this with any objectivity.
The argument, to me, seems to be that it's impossible in the modern world as things stand to actually totally avoid animal products. That would seem like an issue that Veganism should be concerned with.
I see your point, I think, about it being an individual choice. But though I have heard of things like vegan shoes, I can see how saying those are vegan when you may not control all the inputs seems problematic.
Regardless, your response was so unpleasant that I don't think I'm much interested in continuing.
Yeah no reason to go to the moon if we can't visit other planets yet. That's the kind of logic you are arguing.
The vegan argument is to not contribute to animal suffering, you can't control what other people do.
And avoiding suffering doesn't help because there will still be suffering is about as stupid as it gets.
Because its not within any one vegans control whether a random factory worker has chicken for lunch. If there were businesses that only hired vegans and sold vegan products (there are, but very few), then vegans would obviously be buying things from there instead. If someone who isn't vegan themselves uses this impossible purity test as an excuse not to make changes themselves, then they weren't genuine about making any attempt in the first place.
Why is it reasonable to expect me to have any control over what a factory worker is eating? There are entirely vegan businesses, but its setting up a ridiculous goal post to claim vegans are somehow hypocritical by not having a 100% vegan production chain as a consumer, which is literally impossible in the current world. If we could, we absolutely would. But if you want to argue that vegans should handcraft and grow literally everything they use as an excuse not make any changes yourself, I don't know what to say.
Veganism is not about completely eliminating every use of animal products no matter what. It's about reducing animal suffering and their exploitation as long as it's possible and practicable.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
The privilege is being able to choose to eat that way out of a sense of morality or fashion rather for the reason that it's literally all there is to eat. The privilege is being able to turn your nose up at perfectly edible food for no other reason than that it's got a bit of egg, honey, or butter in it without having to worry about starving to death. The privilege is also having access to such an abundance and variety of food that you can maintain a vegan diet year round and not have to fear that you won't meet all the calorie, protein, and vitamin requirements you need to stay alive and healthy while much of the world is in a constant struggle to scrape together enough calories of any kind to stay alive.
that's great, but most vegans you speak to will tell you that we aren't telling the people who lack the privilege we have to go vegan. we're asking our neighbors, our bosses, our friends - people in similar if not the very same life circumstances as us - to walk a couple aisles over from where they buy the meat in the grocery store and buy some beans instead.
people love to bring up the privilege thing, but i would argue that it is entirely irrelevant. the entire point of veganism is to do what is reasonably possible and practicable. not to tell people who don't have the privilege to be so discerning about their diet that they are going to hell or something.
Well, that's getting into the difference between veganism and vegetarianism.
That aside, although meat is expensive from a cost and input perspective, it is a very efficient and dense source of calories and protein.
Outside of a first world or industrial agricultural setting, they also have the advantage of being able to convert food sources humans cannot eat into one we can, while to a great degree being able to tend to themselves.
Goats, sheep and chickens can have large numbers managed by a few children with sticks, and also produce non-vegan animal byproducts which can be sold for cash.
This is also before hunting is considered.
While vegetarianism and veganism can be practiced outside of a first world context, and indeed have been for thousands of years, they do come with sacrifices that are significantly easier to make with more money or in a post agricultural region.
Eschewing cheese, eggs and honey is not a difficult thing to do for me if I wanted, but there are places where that's just leaving good food uneaten, or money unearned.
That's I believe what's being referred to when it's called a privilege.
Except meat is the least efficient protein source. You need land to grow animal feed, which largely could be used to grow crops to feed humans. You put in like 100 calories to get 1 calorie out.
Not all land is suitable for crop cultivation, which was the point I was making. In subsistence or low tech farming areas, animals forage on land unsuitable for crop production and eat food unsuitable for human consumption. They're not eating feed, they're eating wild weeds and grass we can't. They're eating insects, miscellaneous seeds, small plants and whatever they find.
Do you think that if you're farming to have enough food to feed your family and maybe some leftovers to sell, that you're going to choose to produce something markedly inefficient in comparison to other options?
Subsistence farmers today aren't stupid. They're not wasting 90% of their food because they want a hamburger. They raise goats and chickens because they feed themselves and you let your kid who's too young to do heavy work follow them with a stick to keep them from wandering off. They raise cattle and donkeys because they can forage, and what they can't forage is more than made up for by using them to work the land or as beasts of burden.
There's a reason we domesticated animals. We didn't just immediately start giving them feed corn and locking them in cages.
It's a privilege to be able to ignore a readily available source of food.
It's a privilege to live in a society where we set aside land to grow huge amounts of food to feed our food.
It's a privilege to not have to know specifically where your food is coming from.
It's kind of ignorant to think that people who don't have those privileges must be foolish enough to choose what you think is an inefficient option, and to not consider why they would make that choice.
Found it interesting to discover that the money here in the UK is made from animal parts - I think certain notes contain tallow? Definitely seems like it is impossible to fully exclude animal products from your daily life unless you go off the grid and try to be an entirely self sufficient vegan homesteader, which, while extremely difficult and likely dangerous is still an option open to those preaching a vegan lifestyle. Vegans often do not actually practise their philosophy as far as is practical and possible, they all draw the line somewhere so far as how willing they are to sacrifice their comfort and convenience. Like there are no fully vegan cars - the glue is animal based, even if you opt out of a leather interior. Public transport or taking a job you can walk to are alternatives in the UK if you actually cared about benefitting from animals as little as possible, but few vegans will make sacrifices which are actually inconvenient once you get down to the nitty gritty
Imo being a vegan so far as diet and basic lifestyle changes goes is fairly easy for some people (they don't really like meat to begin with, know how to cook and enjoy it, no real health issues, disposable income) but the real test of how much they actually believe in these ideas is in if they consistently give up more niche forms of animal exploitation wherever they can
I think "the money is made from animal parts and there are no fully vegan cars so you're arbitrarily picking and choosing when to be vegan" misses the point of ideological veganism. I'm not a vegan, but I believe the goal for ideological vegans (in contrast with those who are vegan for medical reasons) is to minimize suffering and exploitation within reason for the specific reasons you said. No one can be 100% free of animal parts unless they become an off-the-grid self-sustained homestead.
Vegans know that. But most come to the conclusion that just because you can't live 100% animal free doesn't mean you can't try to get to 80% because you want to live your life in a manner you consider morally and ethically consistent with your collective ideologies. You get as close as you can within reason depending on the various constraints of your individual circumstances. "I am still a vegetarian, and I try to be a vegan, but I occasionally cheat. If there's a cheese pizza on the band bus, I might sneak a piece," to quote Weird Al Yankovic.
I'd say most people, including vegans, have more than one goal in life. The "lines in the sand" you're referring to are at the intersection of their goal to minimize suffering and their goal to, say, keep living. Like if a vegan were told by their doctor, "If you don't start eating meat, you'll die from this weird disease," the vegan likely wouldn't be like, "Well, I might as well indulge in eggs and milk and all other animal products now since I can't be 100% vegan" and chow down. They'd probably eat just the amount prescribed by their doctor, because they still don't like eating meat because its origins bother them.
I would be totally fine with them drawing their lines wherever if they let other people do the same, but many vegans will take the stance that consuming animal products or meat is always wrong, and never justified, no matter what. Many vegans actually would disagree that it is justified to eat animal products if a doctor recommended it, they'd say there are no nutrients found within those products which can't be found in plants. They'd also be against eating gifted non-vegan food, many are against feeding cats a nonvegan diet too
Um... Ima call bullshit real quick. I don't think you have ever met a single person who is as you've drawn in your cartoon here.
Also, why would a vegan or vegetarian be obligated to eat an animal-based product just because it was a gift? That would be weird as fuck. You don't eat sausage or cheese? Here's a sausage and cheese basket. It's a gift; you have to eat it.
And finally, you are suggesting that vegans kill cats. Cats are obligate carnivores. Vegan cat owners know this. A "vegan cat" will not survive long. Suggesting vegans force cats to be vegans is just an absurd falsehood.
Re: vegan cats, they actually can do well on a properly planned/supplemented vegan diet, although more research is needed. If you're against nutritionally complete vegan kibble, you should be against all kibble
"However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used."
Vegans literally are suggesting solutions to the growing population because in almost every situation, it is much more efficient by land and water use for people to eat plant-based rather than meat. It's only a "first world hill to die on" if you think poor people can't eat plants. Sorry but I don't think this is a very accurate take...
"Meat from herd mammals" is not at all the sum total of use of animal products. Should we all be eating less beef? Sure, I can get behind that. None? I'm okay with that, too. What about eggs, cheese, butter - and that's only referring to things we eat, not things we use for other purposes.
People also continue to benefit from the work of slaves in the past and even present. What's your point? Do you think slavery is ethical? Is someone choosing to avoid products created from slave labour not a more ethical choice?
As I understand it, about 20 years ago, my [US] state started requiring all new basement work (including additions) to have radon piping provisions, but they didn't have to be connected.
I'm not trying to give you shit here OP, you did what you did 4 years ago and you're thinking of doing something about it now so it's all good, but:
this is so astronomically expensive every penny saved is good…”
This is so astronomically expensive that I can't imagine caring about 300 bucks to see if anything is horrifically wrong with it. Seriously folks, get an inspection if you're buying a house! This would be like, I dunno, taking a job without talking to a single person who works there, except at least with the job you can quit without wasting thousands of dollars! The inspection could save your life!
I can only provide anecdotal experience, but my old girl found her dream house. Old mining cottage type terraced house, immaculate renovation inside, great hillside views, nice enough place overall...
...she instructed her surveyor to have a look and he told her to run like fuck, the shared wall was pretty much the only thing keeping the house upright - his words were clearly a reduction of some larger issues, but that saved a repair and insurance nightmare.
They're pricey, yes - but they can save you an exponentially larger amount of money.
I was saved by an inspection as well. Not to pile on but you should just get it done OP. Also FUCK YOUR REALTOR (they're very sleazy/immoral - you should not have coitus with them). There are several reasons why realtors hate inspections and any good realtor will insist you get one.
The costs of home maintenance are pretty crazy if you aren't prepared. The cost of an inspection is basically nothing compared to furnace, a/c, roof, windows, siding, flooring, or structural repair. Most appliances cost the same or more than an inspection as well.
And it was one of those things where it's like I had X amount of money, and afterwards I was going to have not much money at all. So spending $300 more of that tiny remaining money was uncomfortable.
There's two kinds of issues: instance and pattern. The first time or two, it's instance. You deal with those with specificity. Something like, "I would prefer not to talk about this subject with you, please stop".
If it persists, then it's a pattern problem. You deal with the pattern, not the instance. "I've asked you not to talk about subjects like this in the pant, but you haven't stopped. This makes me feel like you don't respect my boundaries and it's making it difficult for me to work with you. Why are you doing this to me?".
You can escalate from there, and this might involve management involvement but at least you'll have the clarity of having made the situation clear before it gets there.
Honestly though, unless the coworker is actually deranged, they'll be mortified when they find out they are making you uncomfortable and they'll stop right away.
When poeple went on political rants at work I would say "let's play a game. It's called Don't Talk Politics at Work. I'll go first!" Then I would shut up, turn around and keep on working. Just replace politics with whatever. It's low key funny with a deadpan delivery so I've never had anyone get mad at me for it.
I am an LLM researcher at MIT, and hopefully this will help.
As others have answered, LLMs have only learned the ability to autocomplete given some input, known as the prompt. Functionally, the model is strictly predicting the probability of the next word^+^, called tokens, with some randomness injected so the output isn’t exactly the same for any given prompt.
The probability of the next word comes from what was in the model’s training data, in combination with a very complex mathematical method to compute the impact of all previous words with every other previous word and with the new predicted word, called self-attention, but you can think of this like a computed relatedness factor.
This relatedness factor is very computationally expensive and grows exponentially, so models are limited by how many previous words can be used to compute relatedness. This limitation is called the Context Window. The recent breakthroughs in LLMs come from the use of very large context windows to learn the relationships of as many words as possible.
This process of predicting the next word is repeated iteratively until a special stop token is generated, which tells the model go stop generating more words. So literally, the models builds entire responses one word at a time from left to right.
Because all future words are predicated on the previously stated words in either the prompt or subsequent generated words, it becomes impossible to apply even the most basic logical concepts, unless all the components required are present in the prompt or have somehow serendipitously been stated by the model in its generated response.
This is also why LLMs tend to work better when you ask them to work out all the steps of a problem instead of jumping to a conclusion, and why the best models tend to rely on extremely verbose answers to give you the simple piece of information you were looking for.
From this fundamental understanding, hopefully you can now reason the LLM limitations in factual understanding as well. For instance, if a given fact was never mentioned in the training data, or an answer simply doesn’t exist, the model will make it up, inferring the next most likely word to create a plausible sounding statement. Essentially, the model has been faking language understanding so much, that even when the model has no factual basis for an answer, it can easily trick a unwitting human into believing the answer to be correct.
—-
^+^more specifically these words are tokens which usually contain some smaller part of a word. For instance, understand and able would be represented as two tokens that when put together would become the word understandable.
I think that a good starting place to explain the concept to people would be to describe a Travesty Generator. I remember playing with one of those back in the 1980's. If you fed it a snippet of Shakespeare, what it churned out sounded remarkably like Shakespeare, even if it created brand "new" words.
The results were goofy, but fun because it still almost made sense.
The most disappointing source text I ever put in was TS Eliot. The output was just about as much rubbish as the original text.
Not at all an answer to your question, but a very semi-related tangent.
The last receipt of a US Civil War pension passed away relatively recently. She was a young woman who would regularly help out a local older man, a civil war vet with no kids or family otherwise. Towards the end of his days, he married her so she'd get the benefits of his pension, as things were really really tough.
Some of the detail might be off, going off of memory, but that's the general gist.
EDIT:
So I went to double check, and I got a fair bit of it wrong.
Irene Triplett
She was actually the daughter of the woman I thought I was talking about. Her mother married her father at ages 29 and 78 respectively, and she was born one of five children in 1930, living until the age of 90 before passing in 2020.
Let's say he was 18 at the end of the war on 1865. That was 159 years ago. They have to split that time between his remaining lifetime and all of hers after she's old enough to marry. It's possible they both lived to nearly 100.
Less plausible is that his pension would go to a spouse he married after he retired from the service. Anyone know anything about that in modern times?
So I went to double check, and I got a fair bit of it wrong.
Irene Triplett
She was actually the daughter of the woman I thought I was talking about. Her mother married her father at ages 29 and 78 respectively, and she was born one of five children in 1930, living until the age of 90 before passing in 2020.
Because it's very difficult to get things you need to live solely through barter. Many trades are very niche, and an economy that uses money allows those trades to continue being viable parts of society.
Like, think of plumbing. If everything goes well, you don't need a plumber. But when you do...you really need it. Now imagine being the plumber who wants some bread and eggs but the farmer has no problems currently that needs the plumber's skills. Plumber can't eat, leaves profession, there's now no plumber when the pipes do break.
Obviously, the next thought here might be, "Well, why doesn't the plumber say if they get eggs and bread now, they'll come and fix your toilet later if needed?" But that sort of re-invents credit, right? "I'll trade 3 future plumbing problems for 3 boxes of eggs now." If you have that, why not money?
So basically, money is very useful. It can be traded for many things you otherwise wouldn't be able to get if you were only able to offer as barter a specific item that might be rejected by the other person you want to barter with. Money is a "universal" trade good, and it's also easy to store (you don't have to have lots of physical room to store your Universal Trade Good).
The BEHAVIOR of people surrounding this very useful thing can absolutely be suspect, depending on the person (greedy sociopaths hoarding wealth)--but that's a human thing, not because money is innately a bad thing. It's a social problem, not a technology problem. You could totally have a greedy hoarder storing up a non-money trade item too...see people and toilet paper/sanitizer during Covid.
What they mean is that there is a deep rooted segregation of men and women. Especially in rural parts of India, where you can get to your mid-20s without interacting with a person from the opposite sex (not from your family i.e.). There are no social settings where you can "meet people" and hence for marriage, arranged is the only way.
This book review (never got around to reading the book itself) made me understand why people think "it's tradition" is a valid explanation at least sometimes. I disagree still but i couldn't find any counterarguments.
Endogamy is one of the practices that took root in Indian society as a way to enforce the caste system. Some scholars even call it the rationale behind the caste system. It's got it's roots in Hindu scriptures (not hating on the religion, but it does need reformation IMO).
P.S I think proximity to India, trade with India could have lead to the practice being observed in Afghanistan, but it also seems like Islamic clergy (majority practice this in Afghanistan) does not have entirely progressive views on this.
Some of this - and I speak exclusively from a layman standpoint of having worked extensively with quite a few Indian colleagues - has to do with whether an education system (or culture) prioritizes rote memorization vs critical thinking. India tends towards the former, the West mostly tends towards the latter.
Much simpler to persist the practice across many years when the majority of folks are explicitly taught to accept what they are told and not to actually consider it.
Context, I’m an American working for a large public company whose execs appear to have actually realized they got too aggressive with offshoring in recent years and are actually reversing the practice to a relatively sensible degree.
There is shareholder value in workers who come from e.g., a caste system, but there is also a significant risk to shareholder value when too many levels of decision-making are sent to places where that mindset is common.
There is shareholder value in workers who come from e.g., a caste system, but there is also a significant risk to shareholder value when too many levels of decision-making are sent to places where that mindset is common.
Very interesting. Can you give examples of how this became an issue?
Others have already talked about the potential benefits of matchmaking, but not a lot of people have talked about marriage as a joining of families. There are lots of cultures where it's normative to live together with parents and grandparents (which if you think about it also means aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.). There are lots of benefits to people who live this way - greater financial stability, access to childcare, healthcare, increased lifespan, lower depression - and so it makes sense. If you are bringing someone new into the household, it may be important for the heads of the household to weigh on or even choose the person or the family.
I understand in theory the benefits. But I practice for me It would be a nightmare. Being unable to get away from toxic family members would be horrible. And being the outsider... I'm dating you, not your family. I find the idea of "entering a new family" worrisome and distasteful.
There was this idea that instead of having the web powered by large data companies like Google and Meta you could keep all your information in the blockchain. It was an attempt to "take back control".
However, most of the proponents kinda forgot that the web is already decentralized and only portions are controlled by Meta and Google.
Then, of course, we had the grifters come in.
The whole thing was built on a misunderstanding of how the web actually works.
I think the creators of web3 did understand how the web works, but wanted to change it and sold the change by gaslighting people about how web3 actually works.
I think most proponents/engineers got distracted by number go up and forgot about the decentralization of the Web part. The little bits that are good about it just can't seem to figure out the UX problem.
No Stupid Questions
Hot