Kids And Happiness

[Electrodynamic]

jpanhalt

No system is perfect and Canada's is one of the worst.  It let a child die without treatment to save money.  When a US hospital offered accept and give treatment without charge, Canada would not the the parents and child come here.  They were held prisoners while Canada abandoned their dying child..

While pharmaceutical tourism does occur, those people are probably breaking American law.  Some people even go to Asia or Mexico for cheaper, supposedly equivalent drugs and narcotics.   On the other hand desperate Canadians continually come to the US for better and more accessible care.

Yes every country has it's problems but Canada's problem isn't health care it's immigration. The former government let too many immigrants into our country which caused major problems in health care, housing and employment. Thankfully immigration has been slowed or stopped in many areas so things should get better soon.

In fact, my wife and I needed health care recently and were surprised at the service. Small lines at the walk in clinic, tests within a couple days and easy online access to the results. The biggest problem seems to be people going to emergency for minor ailments not an emergency leading to long wait times. Access to MRI is also a problem but my wife is getting a private sector MRI next week at a fair price.

In any case, I'm really happy I'm not paying $30K or more a year like in the U.S. or going bankrupt. Health care is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.. I can't imagine losing everything just because my family or I got sick. I wonder how many people died because they couldn't afford a doctor?, countless I imagine.

[pcprogrammer]

@Zero999 Go and read some history books.

There have been civilizations all over the world way before the technical revolution came along that lived perfectly happy lives to some extend. Even today you may be able to find some deep in the Amazon that do not need our involvement to get a "better" way of living.

We, the "civilized" westerners have corrupted many of those civilizations with our drive to take over the world and "make everybody happy" and live "better" lives.

And how did Africa end up being poor you should ask, whilst having a lot of the most wanted resources in the world. History!!

The problem is that we all look at things from our own perspective and feel the need to force that upon to others. This is much the case with emotions, and that is what happiness is, an emotion. And since ,in the basis, we are individuals our emotions also vary from person to person, although driven by group behavior it may look like we are all the same.

[asmi]

In fact, my wife and I needed health care recently and were surprised at the service. Small lines at the walk in clinic, tests within a couple days and easy online access to the results. The biggest problem seems to be people going to emergency for minor ailments not an emergency leading to long wait times. Access to MRI is also a problem but my wife is getting a private sector MRI next week at a fair price.

Yeah, I guess that's the downside of free healthcare is that some people go to the hospital even if they don't really need to - or would be much better served by a family doctor or in a walk-in clinic (where wait times are usually no more than 1-1.5 hrs, compared to 3+ hrs in ER). But that still better than delaying your visits to a doctor for as long as possible for the fear of charges/denial of coverage if you happen to come across "the wrong doctor" - until condition deteriorates to a point when simply can not delay it any further - at which point treatment becomes not only more expensive, but also with worse outcomes. I read somewhere that like half of US population admitted that they do in fact delay their visits to a doctor.

[Zero999]

Yes every country has it's problems but Canada's problem isn't health care it's immigration. The former government let too many immigrants into our country which caused major problems in health care, housing and employment. Thankfully immigration has been slowed or stopped in many areas so things should get better soon.

We've had the same problem in the UK. Bringing good medical staff to work in the NHS would help, but they let in a load of other people who require healthcare. It would be fine, if they had a strict immigration policy, but they don't.

@Zero999 Go and read some history books.

There have been civilizations all over the world way before the technical revolution came along that lived perfectly happy lives to some extend. Even today you may be able to find some deep in the Amazon that do not need our involvement to get a "better" way of living.

We, the "civilized" westerners have corrupted many of those civilizations with our drive to take over the world and "make everybody happy" and live "better" lives.

And how did Africa end up being poor you should ask, whilst having a lot of the most wanted resources in the world. History!!

The problem is that we all look at things from our own perspective and feel the need to force that upon to others. This is much the case with emotions, and that is what happiness is, an emotion. And since ,in the basis, we are individuals our emotions also vary from person to person, although driven by group behavior it may look like we are all the same.

What history books? There aren't any in societies which lacked the written word. All we have is observations made by Eurasians who made contact with them. Their findings were pretty stark: poor quality living conditions, disease was rife and it was neither happy, nor peaceful with bloody wars between tribes competing for scarce resources,  raping and taking one another as slaves.

Yes, there have been civilisations in the past, but truly nothing compared to what developed in the West. No vaccines, antibiotics, electricity, telegraph, locomotives, cars etc. Heck technically advanced countries are even more peaceful. They go to war less and there isn't so much violent crime, compared to the poorest countries. Yes there are downsides, but it's more positive, than negative.

Sub-Saharan Africa was even poorer before the introduction of modern technology from the West. It might have some of the world's most precious resources, but they're no good for people who lack the technology to access and use them them. Rare earth metals are no good, for those who haven't invented the wheel, let alone the electric motor.

There is part of me which doesn't care if Africa remains poor, but there again, I do feel as though that it will be good for humanity if their predicament can be improved.

[pcprogrammer]

........

Yeah keep on wearing your pink googles. Boy are you brain washed by the ways of the west.

With history books I mean just all the information on history in existence and not just that what is colored by westerners or the winners of some conflict.

Sure inter human problems have existed since the upcoming of the species and will never go away unless we as a species find a way to completely reform. I do not see this happening.

Just take a good look around you in the world and tell me if we are really civilized. One can sum up a large list of the contrary for sure, and you don't have to look at other countries than your own for that. No I'm not saying that the UK is not civilized, I'm referring to all "western" countries.

But one persons civilized can differ from someone else's, just like all other views that have passed by in this thread.

[soldar]

No system is perfect and Canada's is one of the worst.  It let a child die without treatment to save money.  When a US hospital offered accept and give treatment without charge, Canada would not the the parents and child come here.  They were held prisoners while Canada abandoned their dying child..

Really? When did this happen? Could we have some reliable cites? Because I find it extremely difficult to believe as you present it. Canada can prevent its people from traveling out of the country?

[Cyclotron]

........

Yeah keep on wearing your pink googles. Boy are you brain washed by the ways of the west.

With history books I mean just all the information on history in existence and not just that what is colored by westerners or the winners of some conflict.

Sure inter human problems have existed since the upcoming of the species and will never go away unless we as a species find a way to completely reform. I do not see this happening.

Just take a good look around you in the world and tell me if we are really civilized. One can sum up a large list of the contrary for sure, and you don't have to look at other countries than your own for that. No I'm not saying that the UK is not civilized, I'm referring to all "western" countries.

But one persons civilized can differ from someone else's, just like all other views that have passed by in this thread.

I would appreciate references to societies so grand that they were "colored" by Western winners and historians. What definition of "civilized" do you wish to use? Nations of the past were "civilized" and enslaved their neighbors and sold them to traders. Given this is subjective, maybe consider expressing your viewpoints with more objective terms.  Even the term "Westerner" is subjective.

And what is wrong with "pink"?  I like pink, but prefer orange. Can I have orange goggles? Where is the far west, the middle west? 

Why is this person brainwashed, and you're not brainwashed with your rhetoric?  None of this makes sense.
Does this make kids happy?

[Marco]

So you think a life of perpetual hardship and suffering is better than what we have today?

No, I'm saying the lifespan is a poor indicator of the level of enjoyment/suffering averaged over that life (the hedonic value)

Perhaps you should go any live somewhere with poor sanitation and don't complain when you get sick.

Eventually we get sick and die any way, increasingly so towards the end of our lifespan. A more primitive culture might have less ability to combat disease and injury, but they spend more of their lifetime in their prime where the body can repair itself better (with a lot of infant death, which arguably are less capable of suffering). The average hedonic value of a life does not necessarily increase with lifespan ... and we're doing a really shit job in a lot of the world to make it so.

There are people who make similar arguments from an entirely different perspective, look at the people trying to protect uncontacted tribes from any contact regardless of intention. I don't agree with their intrinsic values (nature worship) but we seem to agree that modernity does not necessarily add (hedonic) value.

[Cyclotron]

So you think a life of perpetual hardship and suffering is better than what we have today?

No, I'm saying the lifespan is a poor indicator of the level of enjoyment/suffering averaged over that life (the hedonic value)

Perhaps you should go any live somewhere with poor sanitation and don't complain when you get sick.

Eventually we get sick and die any way, increasingly so towards the end of our lifespan. A more primitive culture might have less ability to combat disease and injury, but they spend more of their lifetime in their prime where the body can repair itself better (with a lot of infant death, which arguably are less capable of suffering). The average hedonic value of a life does not necessarily increase with lifespan ... and we're doing a really shit job in a lot of the world to make it so.

Who are the "we" you refer to that is responsible for making the hedonic value of life better on average for people as they age?  Do you place hedonic value over the utilitarian value?

There are people who make similar arguments from an entirely different perspective, look at the people trying to protect uncontacted tribes from any contact regardless of intention. I don't agree with their intrinsic values (nature worship) but we seem to agree that modernity does not necessarily add (hedonic) value.

This is why the advanced aliens don't contact us and give us eternal life and cool 800-digit DMMs.  They know better for us.

[Zero999]

........

Yeah keep on wearing your pink googles. Boy are you brain washed by the ways of the west.

With history books I mean just all the information on history in existence and not just that what is colored by westerners or the winners of some conflict.

Sure inter human problems have existed since the upcoming of the species and will never go away unless we as a species find a way to completely reform. I do not see this happening.

Just take a good look around you in the world and tell me if we are really civilized. One can sum up a large list of the contrary for sure, and you don't have to look at other countries than your own for that. No I'm not saying that the UK is not civilized, I'm referring to all "western" countries.

But one persons civilized can differ from someone else's, just like all other views that have passed by in this thread.

Opinion doesn't come into it.

To be civilised, a society needs to have all virtually eliminated abject poverty, have low infant mortality rate, an educated population and have access to all of the technologies required for participating in today's economy. This is an objective test, rather than subjective.

It's got nothing to do with me living in the West. There are plenty of Asian countries which are highly advanced: Singapore, South Korea and Japan is in many ways more civilised than many Western countries. The same cannot be said for anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

It appears as though you're taking from an ideological perspective, rather than a rational one.

So you think a life of perpetual hardship and suffering is better than what we have today?

No, I'm saying the lifespan is a poor indicator of the level of enjoyment/suffering averaged over that life (the hedonic value)

Perhaps you should go any live somewhere with poor sanitation and don't complain when you get sick.

Eventually we get sick and die any way, increasingly so towards the end of our lifespan. A more primitive culture might have less ability to combat disease and injury, but they spend more of their lifetime in their prime where the body can repair itself better (with a lot of infant death, which arguably are less capable of suffering). The average hedonic value of a life does not necessarily increase with lifespan ... and we're doing a really shit job in a lot of the world to make it so.

Well of course the simple lifestyle has its advantages, but they're more than outweighed by the evils.

Having to suffer ones children dying must be a horrible thing to go through.

Witnessing loved ones being killed by wild animals must be a truly traumatising experience.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be involved in tribal warfare and taken as a slave, or having a family member raped and tortured to death by a rival tribe.

I think we Westerners get told a sugar coated version of what it's like to live a prehistoric lifestyle, form books and films.

There are people who make similar arguments from an entirely different perspective, look at the people trying to protect uncontacted tribes from any contact regardless of intention. I don't agree with their intrinsic values (nature worship) but we seem to agree that modernity does not necessarily add (hedonic) value.

The main reason for that is to protect them against disease and the fact that they might react in a violent manner and how does one restrain an angry tribe, without bloodshed, without knowing anything about their language and customs?

[Marco]

The main reason for that is to protect them against disease and the fact that they might react in a violent manner and how does one restrain an angry tribe, without bloodshed, without knowing anything about their language and customs?

That's transient, many want to preserve their lifestyle as a matter of principle, not practicality. They do not see it as inherently inferior.

https://www.junglekeepers.org/uncontacted

"2. Cultural Preservation
Something else is being safeguarded — cultures, languages, and spiritual traditions that represent irreplaceable threads in humanity's shared tapestry. When we respect their wish to remain apart, we help preserve one of humankind's most authentic and unspoiled expressions of culture."

[Zero999]

The main reason for that is to protect them against disease and the fact that they might react in a violent manner and how does one restrain an angry tribe, without bloodshed, without knowing anything about their language and customs?

That's transient, many want to preserve their lifestyle as a matter of principle, not practicality. They do not see it as inherently inferior.

https://www.junglekeepers.org/uncontacted

"2. Cultural Preservation
Something else is being safeguarded — cultures, languages, and spiritual traditions that represent irreplaceable threads in humanity's shared tapestry. When we respect their wish to remain apart, we help preserve one of humankind's most authentic and unspoiled expressions of culture."

Oh I see. It's an ideological position. I reject cultural relativism, (cultures are objectively not equal), but I can see their point. I wish governments in rich countries such as this one, would work towards preserving the culture of their native peoples, rather than erasing it.
 
Note that also most of my points apply to societies which have had contact with the outside world for many generations.

[EEVblog]

Oh I see. It's an ideological position. I disagree with cultural relativism, but I can see their point. I wish governments in rich countries such as this one, would work towards preserving the culture of their native peoples, rather than erasing it.

Australia just passed the other day draconian hate speech laws that could see you arrested and jailed for saying that, with almost no defence. Not kidding. And if a political party says that, they can be banned.

[nctnico]

"2. Cultural Preservation
Something else is being safeguarded — cultures, languages, and spiritual traditions that represent irreplaceable threads in humanity's shared tapestry. When we respect their wish to remain apart, we help preserve one of humankind's most authentic and unspoiled expressions of culture."

That is just people not wanting to move forward. In reality culture changes continuously due to new influences.Take the 'black Friday' thing from the US for example which now gets adopted in many other places in the world. And add 'cyber Monday' to that. But there are always people getting on the fence who don't want to change.

[Analog Kid]

Oh I see. It's an ideological position. I disagree with cultural relativism, but I can see their point. I wish governments in rich countries such as this one, would work towards preserving the culture of their native peoples, rather than erasing it.

Australia just passed the other day draconian hate speech laws that could see you arrested and jailed for saying that, with almost no defence. Not kidding. And if a political party says that, they can be banned.

There you go, Dave, getting all political on us.
And I thank you for that.

[SteveThackery]

Oh I see. It's an ideological position. I disagree with cultural relativism, but I can see their point. I wish governments in rich countries such as this one, would work towards preserving the culture of their native peoples, rather than erasing it.

Australia just passed the other day draconian hate speech laws that could see you arrested and jailed for saying that, with almost no defence. Not kidding. And if a political party says that, they can be banned.

Dave, I think I have missed something. Saying "I wish the government would work towards preserving the culture of their native people" is the opposite of hate speech, isn't it?

[EEVblog]

Dave, I think I have missed something. Saying "I wish the government would work towards preserving the culture of their native people" is the opposite of hate speech, isn't it?

Not so in Australia, that's called being racist. And expressing racist opinions is considered hate speech.

[Analog Kid]

Dave, I think I have missed something. Saying "I wish the government would work towards preserving the culture of their native people" is the opposite of hate speech, isn't it?

Not so in Australia, that's called being racist. And expressing racist opinions is considered hate speech.

Wait a sec; hold the phone there.
That makes little or no sense to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever else you can say about your (Australian) gov't., they're nominally liberal, right?
Meaning they would at least like to think that they're about protecting native and indigenous rights, yes?

So how could they possibly construe what Steve said as racist or "hate speech"? If someone's defending those rights, then it would have to be some kind of Bizarro World where black is white, up is down and that's considered "disinformation" or whatever.

Unless I'm really missing something here ...

[cunningfellow]

Write a vague law that makes everything illegal and then selectively prosecute the people you don't like.

[EEVblog]

Dave, I think I have missed something. Saying "I wish the government would work towards preserving the culture of their native people" is the opposite of hate speech, isn't it?

Not so in Australia, that's called being racist. And expressing racist opinions is considered hate speech.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever else you can say about your (Australian) gov't., they're nominally liberal, right?
Meaning they would at least like to think that they're about protecting native and indigenous rights, yes?

Our government is left leaning, yes. Indigenous (aboriginal) rights, yes, all for that. "White Australian" rights, no, absolutely not.

So how could they possibly construe what Steve said as racist or "hate speech"? If someone's defending those rights, then it would have to be some kind of Bizarro World where black is white, up is down and that's considered "disinformation" or whatever.

Welcome to the world of wokeism in the western world, where the absolute worst thing you can be is a straight white male. Actually you can be worse than that, you can be one who complains about immigration.
This is not unique to Australia, the UK is worse for example.

I could expand on this, but it's entirely political. So I'll leave it at that. Go look up the implication of Australia's new hate speech laws just passed if you want details. Plenty of commentary out there on it from all and sundry. Happy it discuss it on X, were I tweet almost daily about this stuff.

[Analog Kid]

Our government is left leaning, yes. Indigenous (aboriginal) rights, yes, all for that. "White Australian" rights, no, absolutely not.

So how could they possibly construe what Steve said as racist or "hate speech"? If someone's defending those rights, then it would have to be some kind of Bizarro World where black is white, up is down and that's considered "disinformation" or whatever.

Welcome to the world of wokeism in the western world, where the absolute worst thing you can be is a straight white male. Actually you can be worse than that, you can be one who complains about immigration.
This is not unique to Australia, the UK is worse for example.

I could expand on this, but it's entirely political. So I'll leave it at that. Go look up the implication of Australia's new hate speech laws just passed if you want details. Plenty of commentary out there on it from all and sundry.

I'm just trying to understand this.

Our friend Steve posted:

Dave, I think I have missed something. Saying "I wish the government would work towards preserving the culture of their native people" is the opposite of hate speech, isn't it?

So  according to your description of your own government, saying what he posted--basically agreeing with their own position on native people's rights--couldn't possibly be construed as "hate speech", right?

I mean, that statement is defending native rights, not supporting "white rights" or railing against immigration.

So I fail to see how that makes any kind of sense at all. It's kind of like reverse wokeism, if such a thing exists.
BTW, I know all about your clampdown on speech, and the even worse one in the UK (and in Germany as well), and I think all that sucks. But I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you described here, which I can't make any sense out of.

[EEVblog]

I'm just trying to understand this.

Then discuss it with me on X. I will not do it here.

[fzabkar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever else you can say about your (Australian) gov't., they're nominally liberal, right?

Let me see if I can explain it to you.

On the conservative side we have the Liberal Party. That's right, the name of the party is a lie in itself. In fact, it rings a bit like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but in politics things don't always mean what we think they mean. Not too long ago, our Liberal Prime Minister awarded a knighthood to Prince Phillip of England. I guess you can't get more conservative than that. He was later replaced as leader of his own party by a centrist republican. Is it getting any clearer?

On the other side we have the Labor Party. No, not the Labour Party. They are currently running the country. During their founding days they were taught how to spell by an American.

In a nutshell, Labor is liberal, and Liberal is conservative. Republicans can be either. Make sense?

[pcprogrammer]

I would appreciate references to societies so grand that they were "colored" by Western winners and historians. What definition of "civilized" do you wish to use? Nations of the past were "civilized" and enslaved their neighbors and sold them to traders. Given this is subjective, maybe consider expressing your viewpoints with more objective terms.  Even the term "Westerner" is subjective.

True, for me the term "Westerner" is a globalization for what is today's "modern" world.

One could say that just living a somewhat peaceful life can be called "civilized", and that entails not harming others with your beliefs. And by that standard basically nobody is civilized, because we all act based on our own believes and like to push that believe upon others. Sure it may improve on the others life, but does that give you the right to do so.

Throughout the ages there have been "civilizations" like for instance the Maya's who lived by their ideas of civilization, and yes that included human sacrifice to the gods etc. But who are we to say that they were not civilized.

Same applies to tribes Marco wrote about. Sure they have their own ideas about civilization, that in our eyes is not worthy. But who are we to judge based on our own history of pillaging, enslaving, exploitation, etc.

We humans like to control everything in our surroundings and don't seem to be able to find balance.

And what is wrong with "pink"?  I like pink, but prefer orange. Can I have orange goggles? Where is the far west, the middle west? 

How about rose colored then. Come on, it is an expression and you know it.

Why is this person brainwashed, and you're not brainwashed with your rhetoric?  None of this makes sense.

Because of his beliefs that the current civilization with all the technical advancement is the best there is, and that is questionable.

When it comes to it we are all brainwashed in one way or another. I won't deny that I have biases too.

Does this make kids happy?

This thread is not about kids being happy, it is supposed to be about having them making you happy, and with you I mean the person in question having a kid.

As always a problem with written forum based discussions it is very hard to bring across the meaning of your thoughts, so take from it what you will.

[pcprogrammer]

Opinion doesn't come into it.

That is your opinion.

To be civilised, a society needs to have all virtually eliminated abject poverty, have low infant mortality rate, an educated population and have access to all of the technologies required for participating in today's economy. This is an objective test, rather than subjective.

Again your acceptance of some global opinion.

And lets put it to the test in how society in our countries is up to that opinion. Poverty still there and according to news feeds increasing. Education, again based on news feed in decline.

It appears as though you're taking from an ideological perspective, rather than a rational one.

Nothing to do with ideology, just looking at the human species as it is. And the outcome is that as a species we are bad in a lot of ways and far from real civilization, where we all live in peace and comfort and do not harm each other.


I will say, both our expressing ourselves comes forth from our own believes and outlook on the world, and they differ.