So, I think there's this concept that childhood used to be more unstructured. A lot of modern ideas seem to be about duplicating an imagined old environment of discovery, curiosity, etc.
As a very boring man, I enjoy 19th century memoirs and novels. One thing you notice is that it's not precisely correct to say things are unstructured. Kids are more free to, e.g. run around outside or get in fights, etc. But, two big things are different:
1) Work starts much much earlier, and is often quite a heavy load. If it's ag or shopwork, it's actually extremely regimented.
2) Even when you're a young boy, allowed to run around and play, enforcement is extremely harsh. No helicopter parenting, but the threat of a whipping.
I'm reading a bit about Old Order Anabaptists lately, and I think (2) is especially important to think about. You don't *need* helicopter parenting if the kid is constantly entertaining thoughts of Hell, and/or the leather strap.
So, what to an outside observer may appear a life of freedom and exploration is in fact highly constrained. I suspect you'd find the same thing in most societies where survival is hard. The idea of kids themselves discovering morals/socialization is, I suspect, thoroughly modern.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, I've mentioned a couple times that there's a pretty solid case that the US should never have undertaken the Apollo Program. A number of prominent people have agreed over the years - Clarke, G Harry Stine, John Logsdon, others.
A few people asked for the argument
There are variations, but the basic deal goes like this:
If you go back to the 50s, when there's a strong desire by space advocates for a human presence in space, space scientists produced plans for the best way to build space infrastructure.
By space infrastructure, I mean a system of vehicles and stations that work together to make the process of space launch cheaper. For instance, starting around 1952, von Braun and others push for a large rotating space station ~1000 miles high.
So, for the Space Book, I'm reading lots of old books on space prediction, going back to the 1930s. Most common predictions of how to make widespread human space presence happen are:
1) Data Gathering 2) Industry, e.g. solar power, manufacturing 3) Reusable vehicles
1 was obsolete due to robots by the late 60s, though the idea hung on.
2 didn't happen. I personally think it remains unlikely for a long time.
3 is 5 years old now, but works relatively differently from what people thought.
Specifically, even as late as the 21st century, the usual concept is space planes. Either a single stage giant one or a series of vehicles strapped to each other. Or, as with the shuttle, partially a plane and partially tanks you can just grab out of the ocean.
This is Arthur C. Clarke, writing in a book from 1968, in a section on ways that have been proposed to get to the Moon.
(for the non-space-geek, note the Apollo 11 Moon landings haven't happened yet)
“It will be noted that reusability was taken for granted; it never occurred to us that multimillion-dollar vehicles would be used for a single mission and then abandoned in space. We were not that imaginative.
If human beings were logical entities, controlled by reason instead of emotion, these or similar ideas would probably have been developed in an orderly manner, rendezvous techniques would have been perfected,
"'Property and Dispossession' challenges a set of assumptions, powerfully entrenched since the time of the Enlightenment, that sees property as a single thing, the hallmark of civilization and modernity.
Europeans of the early modern period had "it," according to this view, Native Americans did not, and colonization meant installing this mechanism of progress on New World soil where it had previously been unknown.
Historians who would not dream of endorsing such ideological justifications of imperialism still tend to take a rather naive view of property, as though colonists arrived from Europe with a system of property that was somehow complete,
There seems to be an ongoing nerd fight between doctors/epidemiologists and stats/risk assessment nerds. I see a lot of casting the Other Nerd as ignorant (common nerd fight move), but is some of this more about values than knowledge?
Just as an example: back when Bloomberg tried to ban NYC vendors from selling soda over 32 ounces, I remember listening to hearing interviews with healthcare people, who were supportive of the ban. Usual argument - "it'll save lives."
That strikes me as a core value, and one that's probably common among healthcare people: at any cost, save one more life.
To a risk analyst, the core value is something more like "save a life, but only if you're cutting a good trade."
I think there's an informal fallacy that's fairly common which is something like "believing that all the people and views I dislike are part of a cohesive movement." There's a corollary assumption which is something like "everyone in my coalition agrees with me."
I think these two operate to make each other worse, because if you believe your enemies are unified and powerful that's scary, and if you assume your coalition is not a coalition but a cohesive unit, you overestimate how popular your own views are.
There are lots of examples of all this stuff, but one is the use of "postmodernism" which partially describes something real (academic bullshit) but also is used to describe anything from really non-postmodern leftism to trans rights to feminism.