My purpose is to care for the people I can as I learn to love and be loved.
It is not the job of the nation-state to give people a deep sense of purpose. That is a job for a church, temple, or other spiritual community. Governments which try to do that job tend to do badly, sometimes with monstrous results. They ought be separate.
It seems to me that historically, "the church, temple, or other spiritual community" filling that role has come with all the same downsides as the nation-state filling that role. And that's not a comment about religion – any organisation is at risk of abuse of that type because that's just how humans and organisations work.
And fully agree with "care for the people I can as I learn to love and be loved", but at the same time people do need some sense of "community", "togetherness", and "we're all in it together"-ness, especially in times when things are perhaps not going so well, and I do feel that's rather been lost.
Any organization made of humans is indeed fallible and corruptible. I have heard some dark stories of this. They are not mine to tell.
Still, the people who say they are trying to uphold a responsibility are more likely to do so with care than those who are trying to do something else.
If a father needs someone to watch his 4-year-old daughter, is it wiser to drop her off at a daycare or at a post office logistics warehouse?
Every organisation attracts all sorts of people with different motivations, interests, desires, which often conflict within the organisation. I don't think there are big differences there. Daycares and post offices are narrowly defined specialist organisations, not broad wide organisations such as the church or government.
And besides, I don't think churches can be a general solution to sense of purpose or community, because it would exclude the growing majority of secular people who don't really have any religious affiliation, or are explicitly agnostic/atheist. You need ... something else for that, something more secular. I don't really know what that would be.
And let's not view the past with too much rose-coloured glasses either, as religion could be ugly business just as much as nationalism can. A famous example is Tolkien's mother, who converted from Anglicism to Catholicism and was pretty much ostracized and consigned to poverty by her family (her husband died of illness when Tolkien was about two). A Catholic priest took Tolkien in and that's how he got his education so the church/religion isn't all bad in this story, but there was a lot of needless misery, and he was "saved" by a stroke of good fortune.
I remember this type of stuff from my grandfather as well (in the Netherlands). Their house burned down during the war and after the war they relocated to the next village, which was protestant instead of catholic (or the reverse? I forgot) and were ostracized because of that. Especially in the context of post-occupation Netherlands this was double ridiculous because you'd think that these kind of small differences would fade away, but there you have it. One of the reasons they ended up moving to the city.
Let me suggest that the reason you label the church as the body responsible for the deep sense of purpose, is that the Church in all societies used to be, and in some cases still is, the Government. Europe's cathedrals were the middle-ages equivalent of work programs. (All those church tithes had to be spent on something.)
It has also done that job spectacularly badly at times.
The states of Germany and Austria take away a persons purpose because these states are very authoritative and oppressive. Governments shouldn't try to give people a purpose, but they should develop a country via laws that enable or encourage its people to find purpose. Socialism does the opposite, as it's based on the logic of taking away from people who have, and giving to those who don't, which means taking away from those people who found purpose, and giving to those who don't and usually don't seek purpose but instead search for temporarily pleasures like alcohol.
> it's based on the logic of taking away from people who have, and giving to those who don't, which means taking away from those people who found purpose, and giving to those who don't and usually don't seek purpose but instead search for temporarily pleasures like alcohol
I’m with you in your opinion that government shouldn’t try to give people purpose but I think the last part of your argument is an overreach.
You’re conflating purpose with making money. They’re not the same. Counterexample: Vincent van Gogh. His purpose was clearly art but he did not see professional success while alive. If you don’t consider Van Gogh’s purpose to be something like painting or art then I’d suggest you’re not using the word as it is commonly defined.
Also I’d suggest that it’s unfair to paint the poor broadly as not seeking purpose and instead searching for temporary pleasures. I have simultaneously known both an economically struggling person who refrains from drugs and alcohol and a well-to-do person who is a functional alcoholic.
Certainly alcoholism can make people lose money, relationships, etc. But it does not follow that simply abstaining from these things will make one wealthy.
Of course they're not the same, but before people can developer higher spiritual or social purposes they have to develop their material life. For most people, on top of what I just side in the previous sentence, developing their material life itself is a journey that leads them to developing and furthering their social and family life which then leads to a higher spiritual life.
Point being Vincent van Gogh who was "Born into an upper-middle-class family" according to Wiki.
> Also I’d suggest that it’s unfair to paint the poor broadly as not seeking purpose and instead searching for temporary pleasures.
Of course, but I was talking about those poor people who live their lives by becoming dependent on the social states without trying to further their lives. I'm not talking about poor people in general.
I have come to the conclusion that lots of humans have a religion-shaped hole in their psyche. It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion.
Hymns are a better opiate of the masses than fentanyl.
While I agree that the reduction in the role of religion in the US is partially to blame for the increase in severe cases of drug addition, the idea that we need to bring religion back essentially to control people is extremely patronizing. Basically, we are saying that some people are too stupid to live productively if they are not controlled by fairy tales.
This is the same approach as we are seeing in the "far left" bubble in the context of this issue: street drug addicts have no responsibilities and agency, the society has to accommodate their every whim, including ignoring all illegal activities they are engaged in.
Until we acknowledge that benefits come with responsibilities we are not going to solve this.
It's naive to see religion as fairy tales. If used correctly, the tales are a medium of communication to instill values, discipline and morals in the masses.
The fundamental reason and ground for these morals will remain in fairy tales. You don't see how divisive and fragile that is? This is fundamentally wrong, even if it used to work effectively.
Surely there is another way? Stronger families, philosophy, sports, education? Humanism over religion - the only truly universal approach.
It's not fairy tales. Its human need for attachment to something greater. America has not filled that with anything else. The previous flag waving civic nationalism has become demonized so now there's nothing.
Religion is far from the only venue to explore the purpose and meaning of one's life.
I think religion is declining because people are discovering there are many ways to perform self-discovery and practice fulfillment.
The only aspect of religion that has been beneficial to modern society is providing a social venue for others to interact. This can be achieved by building stronger neighborhoods and encouraging the development of more welcoming social venues -- something that I think is the cure to America's loneliness epidemic.
> I think religion is declining because people are discovering there are many ways to perform self-discovery and practice fulfillment.
Let's suppose this were true. If, as you say, it's all about purpose and meaning, then we would expect that although everyone's conception of these things is different, it would still provide the same benefit. However, this is not what we find. Markers of purpose and meaning (such as suicide rate, depression, etc) are getting worse, not better.
So we're forced to come to terms with a few possible conclusions, none of which are very good for your point of view. Either the systems people are coming up with are insufficient to achieve the same goals or people are not coming up with their own system and are left to flounder.
> This can be achieved by building stronger neighborhoods and encouraging the development of more welcoming social venues -- something that I think is the cure to America's loneliness epidemic.
How is Europe doing on these indicators? Or anywhere else?
I am not surprised by that in the slightest, and I agree that most people struggle with that, myself included. It is THE struggle of our lives.
Being told as a child that if you take drugs you will go to hell is not a meaningful alternative. Not for incredibly complex thinking beings that we are.
Submitting to Jesus, being a part of the "right" religious group is not a benefit to the human race as a whole. It's poison, promoted by power hungry maniacs.
Our maturing world (not just the US) is starting to recognize that religion is BS. We can't go back to relying on religion for keeping our bad instincts at bay. The influence of religion is and has been low in many European countries for decades, which did not result in an increase in homelessness we are seeing in the US.
Social programs, education, keeping corporations in check - these are meaningful alternatives to the idea that we need to bring Jesus back to control the population.
I'm pretty sure they anticipated this attitude in Revelation 3:15
Indifference is worse than extreme atheism or fundamentalism because those two options are actually concerned about others
The indifferent person could care less whether you believe or don't, it's your own "individual responsibility", they owe nothing to you and you owe nothing to them
Widespread indifference will bring about the slow dismantlement of society
East Asia and parts of Europe have quite a few people who are entirely apathetic towards religion. Drug addicts aren't out and open in those regions.
I've really only witnessed such open drug abuse in countries with strong Christian influence, e.g. the US and Latin America. Might be worth investigating why widespread debilitating drug abuse stems from that background.
I mean, they anticipated the effect of eating shellfish and allowing women to speak up in Whatever X:YY, is this going to end the world as we know it as well?
Finding purpose and our place in the world is our individual responsibility. Don't confuse it with the lies of eternal heaven at the cost of total submission in this life that your religion is promoting.
It isn't a "price" that you pay for some reward down the line, or at least that's a pretty shallow way of approaching it, and assuming that is kind of reductive
>the idea that we need to bring religion back essentially to control people is extremely patronizing. Basically, we are saying that some people are too stupid to live productively if they are not controlled by fairy tales.
Can something be simultaneously true and patronizing?
Just looking at how humans in general behave worldwide, I'd say that yes, people are really quite stupid.
Ha, well, yes. But despite sounding so anti-religious and pro individual responsibility, I am not only optimistic, I am always inspired and heartened by us, humans. I believe, we are capable of incredible breakthroughs and are growing as a whole. Untangling from centuries of brutal religious domination will take time, and we will struggle, and sometimes fail. But eventually we will grow out of the need to find purpose in submission, and will thrive as more aware and realized beings.
> I have come to the conclusion that lots of humans have a religion-shaped hole in their psyche.
I increasingly believe the same and I don't believe the vast majority are capable of filling it on their own in a healthy way, but there are a lot of other social factors at play too.
> It is far better to fill it with a stable, local, hope-giving religion.
If it's a binary choice of opiate addiction vs. religious practice, sure. But for many, the hole that some fill with religion is filled with other sorts of meaning-giving practices. Not to take away from the comfort, stability and hope that religious affiliation provides for many; but for others the source of connection to the transcendent and to contributing to concerns beyond oneself comes in different forms.
This is also true. The decline in community (where religion played a large part in cementing personal and local bonds) and increase in anomie has led not just to deaths of despair and to other symptoms not just loneliness and depression, but on the fringes of alienation and disconnection to where some volatile people go as far hate-fueled "blaze of glory" mass shootings.
I find one of the biggest losses, especially in dense cities, is that the churches and community orgs there often lack local, long-term ties to said communities. Also, there are a number of religious institutions in big cities that are sometimes open only on (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday depending on their beliefs) and don't provide as much closeness and synomie for people as rural religious institutions do.
I wouldn't recommend that all things must attempt to recapture the 1950's apartheid and social conservativism in all regards, but a crucial linchpin of a functional society appears to be missing. It is not necessarily religion or faith, but it includes a lack of love for, and trust of, others where America went from community-individual balanced to hyperindividualism with a dysfunctional social safety net.
>I wouldn't recommend that all things must attempt to recapture the 1950's apartheid and social conservativism in all regards
I don't think you can avoid this. If you bring back religion, you necessarily have to accept apartheid and social conservatism. The two go hand-in-hand.
Religion probably worked well for bonding communities back when communities were small and homogeneous and had little contact with the outside world. But in an era of global travel and communications, it doesn't work: we have to have huge wars to decide whose religion is the correct one. Just look at what's going on with Israel lately. Different religions can't peacefully co-exist, so devastating wars are necessary to maintain order.
> Religion probably worked well and bonding communities back when communities were small and homogeneous and had little contact with the outside world.
Religion has been more impactful in spreading knowledge and connecting cultures around the world than the printing press, radio and the internet combined. Religion for a long time was the only contact with the outside world. Christianity today is more or less the culture and knowledge from thousands of years and countless different tribes and cultures, fused into one piece. Spread worldwide by preaching, manuscripts, monks, monasteries and by the sword. Compared to most ideologies that only spread by the sword, ancient and modern.
The default human condition is to spread by breeding among your own people, and exterminate other people. Sometimes just the men and the boy children, to breed with the women. Sometimes by exterminating everybody and even eating them. Cannibalism and human sacrifice was the default human condition for tens of thousands of years, or maybe even for millions of years, before the light came to man.
Thinking that religion is only war and oppression is like thinking math is only for calculating artillery. It's a limited perspective.
This was one of the topics covered by "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong [1]. While she didn't propose people should find religion per se, she did present the argument that a god sized hole exists in our psyche, so if one is not religious it needs to be filled somehow.
The side effect of that is that some people will get it into their head that they're the chosen ones and push their religion onto others at great cost. Religious nations have already shown that.
Consider video games as the opiate instead. At least they don't fuck up your health and you might come out with stronger problem solving skills.
A dating site could work sustainably if it was a site for planning date nights. Make profiles based on activities and swipe right or left on the activities you want to do.
Revenue sources would include:
- Ads for local businesses, classes, and events.
- Annual subscription which is cheaper after the first year and gives you discount codes to events and restaurants.
Once you get the site to work for date nights, let people be open to getting matched based on similar activity interests. Then you can solve the problem of two users finding a specific joint activity.
Would this solve the problem of finding people to have sex with? No, but computers are bad at sex.
Would this solve the problem married couples have of picking a place to eat? Hopefully.
I ran a startup making something similar to this pre-covid, it wasn't just date night, it was "find something to do in under 5 minutes". Groups of 4 to 6, partnering with local businesses who hosted the events. You opened the app, said what you wanted to do and when, and you were automatically put into a group. You could select how many people you already had going with you (date, or just a group of 2 friends who needed a few more people for a cooking class or whatnot).
No photos until just before the event started, because photos turn things into a beauty contest and people start judging on looks, which is where, IMHO, all my competition in the same space went wrong.
Events were scheduled for as little as 4 hours out, and only up to 72hrs in the future. The entire app flow was designed to be as close as possible to a "I am bored, entertain me now" button.
Investors hated it, two sided marketplaces are apparently something they like to avoid due to difficulties around execution.
People were desperate for this type of service though, for one marketing campaign my user acquisition cost dropped as low as 15 cents per user.
(If any investor reading wants to throw me a million I'll start it back up again. ;) Solving the loneliness epidemic in America's cities is a huge chance to do some social good!)
You weren't able to scale enough initially to be profitable on your own operations, I presume? At what scale would you be able to support your burn rate?
This is a fantastic project. I also briefly worked on something similar, but left when I learned more about my coworkers.
> You weren't able to scale enough initially to be profitable on your own operations, I presume? At what scale would you be able to support your burn rate?
Bootstrapped, COVID hit right before the launch date.
Infra costs were ~$200 a month to support 10k DAU. I'd just come off of working on embedded, so I was used to writing really efficient code. :)
> At what scale would you be able to support your burn rate?
Just needed to cover my living expenses mortgage and salaries!
Obviously to scale money was needed for ad campaigns, but people are lonely and offering to solve loneliness has a high conversion rate!
I agree the idea seems solid enough, but accommodating the increased complexity of scaling it up sounds quiet difficult. Out of curiosity what did you learn about your coworkers? Something about their motivations for creating such an app or what?
One guy liked to send dick pics, another was doing a lot of drugs and sent deranged messages for 48 hours straight to random people and the last was "just" a compulsive liar, who seemed to invite a prostitute to the office who then stole servers. I wasn't even sure why we even had the servers, since we barely bad any software written yet.
Your idea is exactly what I would like to have in an app, with a ML twist and also more on matchmaking people based on their traits, personalities, morals and values. Below is my comment on it. It an idealistic solution, but I have an outline of such an app, that might need some refining. I would love to talk about if its it's even doable or feasible, and you seem to the the best person for it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37520545
Perhaps then it is better run as a feature of a city’s local newspaper. They already have the advertising department side of the marketplace. Does anyone at the Boston Globe want to buy your code?
> Theres a YC video that goes over tar pit problems. If i am not mistaken, this exact scenario is covered as a tar pit.
Yeah the final end goal was either to make lots of deals with local businesses (hard to scale) or to license an ML personality matching model to companies.
The app had a handful of personality questions that I copied over from research done at one of the Nordic universities (I forget which one) on what makes people get along together in a casual setting. The American universities have mostly done research on group cohesion in corporate settings, which maybe hints at what is wrong with American society at large!
Cruise liners and casinos would pay a fortune to know what guests would vibe together.
I had a partner website that allowed for self onboarding, but of course b2b2c is never that simple. :)
The operating costs were so absurdly low (~$200 a month per city it was running in) that letting people create their own events for free was in the near term road map, no reason not to.
> Make profiles based on activities and swipe right or left on the activities you want to do.
Back in the early 2010s there was a dating site that was based around this premise. You would post a specific activity and see if someone wanted to join you for it. I didn't personally use it (as intended) but it was a great place to get fun date night activities with my partner. I think they realized that use case (date night planning) and eventually added this as a feature. I don't remember the name of the site unfortunately, someone else might. I would be surprised if it's still around.
That's also similar to a service OkCupid had separate from the main site called Crazy Blind Date.
With this one, however, you defined the qualities you were seeking and the times and part of the city you were available for a date. They would match people up based on the time, location and OkCupid match rating (mostly, I think) and would ask if you wanted to meet the person. It gave you just their basic info and a distorted photo.
I used it for a while and don't remember why I stopped but it was one of the best dating apps I've used. None of the dates went anywhere, but it was a really simple and easy way to meet new people.
The police employed by authoritarian countries? Yes, though I don’t think corrupt officials should take bribes.
The judges employed by those countries who recognize necessity as an excuse for what is otherwise a crime? Yes, though now the law seems less authoritarian.
Like should they be allowed (i.e., have a possibility) to financially support opposition, journalists, etc.? Should the persecuted minorities (LGBT, etc) be able to hide their actions that may reveal them? Or should they be able to leave the country without revealing such plans to authorities in advance? And so on.
It's relevant because a privacy in finance (i.e., "breaking the laws") is important for those people. So I'm curious what the KidComputer thinks about this.
The one issue I’ve found is that most services seem to retain _much_ less precision for participant video versus screen sharing. Text can often become really blocky and blurry.
I did something similar, but used OBS. There are a few ways to feed video from a cell phone into it. Gives you the chance to do any zooming/cropping/etc to account for limitations in where you can place the phone. As well as adjust brightness/contrast/white balance if you’re really anal about that kind of stuff.
From there I open the feed in a “projector” window and screen share that.
I'd like to see people pushing back against motor-normativity and voting out any politician that makes money from oil companies. Also, boycotting any sports event that has a major oil company sponsor would be an easy thing for people to do.
I think it's going to keep carrying on like this for a while until people start rioting and destroying the capitalist institutions that have been hiding and dismissing our problems for decades.
You will not see that. Washington state enacted a mild carbon emissions tax as of Jan 1 that has caused gas prices in the state to go up to the highest in the country, as well as price increases in everything else.
Which is exactly what it was supposed to do, to get people to consume less. However, a significant proportion of Washington residents are clamoring for their leaders to now reduce the carbon tax.
Everybody is “green” until sacrifices get put on the table.
But but but that oil based politician says if we get rid of oil then we have to live like we are in the stone ages and that sounds hard so I'll just deal with it until it blows over
Helping my dad with a cabin renovation. Building things with my fingers and a keyboard is great, but I moved back to the US so that I could build things with my shoulders and arms.
Firstly, read about the recovery of YC founder Hiroki Takeuchi after his injuries. He built a team and led a company that was a highlight of my professional life and which is still growing strong.
Then, find two communities of people local to you.
The first, fellow programmers to continue to practice your craft alongside.
The second, people who do something with their bodies — dancing or rock climbing or basketball.
It may feel like the people at your school whom you would have expected to protect you have betrayed you. They have indeed failed you. It is tempting to hide away to be alone. It is tempting to only reach out to people on the internet who can at best offer superficial companionship. I ask you to resist that temptation.
There are still people who care even though they are human. In this moment what matters is that you find people to be beside you so that you still have a team. Few things are built alone. Many are built by building a team.
It is not the job of the nation-state to give people a deep sense of purpose. That is a job for a church, temple, or other spiritual community. Governments which try to do that job tend to do badly, sometimes with monstrous results. They ought be separate.