I mean, it sounds dumb, but returns from further wealth are logarithmic; after a certain point, the only thing you can buy more of is power. And you’ve already got that, in this case!
If you’re in a situation where getting more wealth could endanger your power, it makes sense not to wealth-max since, again, what else could you buy with it? But you need to get into the “what else could you buy with it” regime for this reasoning to make sense.
Someone who only has basic needs gets there pretty early. But even the relatively unenlightened don’t need the second jet except, yannow, for power.
On the page you have linked, there is a section titled "Skeptical explanations," which contains explanations of the event that are both plausible and satisfying. If you stare at the sun for a while you're going to see some weird stuff. Don't try it at home.
> someone who can create a stable, responsible, potentially loving environment for a family, someone who can endure a lot of strain and responsibility while still holding it together
Your question floored me for a few hours, it’s a good one, but I think I’ve worked it out.
This goal applies to both men and women, but a man needs to do this in terms of protecting his family from the outside, and create the conditions that this can happen within any harsh world, whereas it’s the woman’s job to actually do it inside the bubble that the man created.
Obviously these are broad strokes and there are overlaps. But to me a man and a woman are both nothing really without a family, ultimately that’s what all this is about, it’s just how do you create that family and maintain it that’s different slightly.
I think society would be better off if all people were raised to focus on creating stable, responsible families and being resilient to adversity, regardless of gender. Roles within the relationship should be negotiated based on individual strengths.
I say that as a woman without children in a very equal marriage, working in software, who worries regularly about the impact of having children. I dread being expected to take on a less "worldly" and more "homemaker" role.
Curious as to if you can give insight why? I think many mothers would say their role as a mother is the most important and valuable to them. Usually men are more ambitious in their work, and women who become ambitious in work and career risk missing the biological clock to have children.
I would hope that fathers would also say that being a father is their most important role!
I have been a software engineer for a decade. I derive a good deal of personal satisfaction from my work, and from being able to provide financially for my family. There are some things that only my body might be capable of, compared to my husband's, but otherwise I would hope that we are able to equitably divide responsibilities and impart the varying positive aspects of our worldviews and personalities onto our children.
Bio clock is a mild concern, but people can struggle with infertility at any age. I would not want to tie my entire personality up with motherhood/homemaking and then find out that it wasn't in the cards.
Yeah - if you didn't have a lawyer take a look at the policy, what was the point of even putting the policy up there? and if you did have a lawyer look at it and they didn't catch it - get rid of that lawyer lol
Materialistic became buggy for me in terms of UI elements arbitrarily switching to different themes (pixel 5a). I switched to Harmonic and have been very happy with it.
