However, the lessons we’ve learned from biology suggest that when modern medicine saves the lives of those with genetic defects or abnormalities we inadvertently increase the rate of these defects in the future, as these defects would otherwise remove themselves through natural selection. We once had embarrassing policies in the US based on social Darwinism that were quickly jettisoned once we discovered how Hitler was implementing similar ideas on his people (and the inhumanity they created). The message is clear: Limit your reproduction, and you’re really making a choice to limit your genetic representation in the gene pool going forward.Īs a side note, I think it would be interesting to have an economics discussion about genetics and population change. To me, the argument against reproduction is made the more absurd because the argument is based on the fact that the Earth contains limited resources! And yet it ignores the impact of limited resources on reproductive decisions among all species, including humans. But this assumes that his decision will not free up some other individual to make the decision to produce more offspring, and completely negate the impact of his decision to have none. Indeed, he assumes that he can compound his impact by including the unborn generations he never sired. But the fallacy in the idea that people like Cowen are having any real impact, even at the margin, because they have fewer children ignores the action of every other individual who is competing for resources. Indeed, many of my biologist colleagues subscribe to the philosophy that they can limit worldwide population size by changing their own reproductive habits. I’m all for education, and I understand the literature that it often results in lower rates of reproduction. You will simply free up resources for those more willing to reproduce. However, it does not follow that the population size as a whole will be reduced. However, any basic biology class will teach you that the end result of having a whole class of individuals produce fewer offspring will be that you will end up with with a lower representation of the genes of those who choose not to reproduce. This isn’t Cowen’s fault, he’s an economist, not a biologist. If we use this lense we’d realize what a f waste university is in not preparing u for these different areas.I disagree entirely with Cowen’s take on individuals limiting the number of children they have. Ur not just a designer that’s just part of the profession. If u consider the top points ued realize your job isn’t just to draw things your job is more supervising on site, contracting, meadiating with the client, materials salesman or business man and so on. The design is merely a small part of the money making machine. Most projects aren’t designed there just drawn on paper as per requirements. But architecture is about getting a job done with the word ( practicality ) infused in it. Although it is necessary of course to widen ur thoughts. Not waste too much time on paper drawing and overthinking theories. U should learn how things are done on site and how to manage material and workers and so on. You should learn mostly civil works and building methods pros and cons in different regions. The way they teach it in university is completely wrong because the academics mostly haven’t worked as One. I’ve been an architect for 13years, and I’ve worked in the largest most reputable companies in my region. I love architecture and grateful forever for what it gave to me but decided to not trick myself anymore. We end up being just a drone clicking on a mouse the whole day, doing pan and zoom copy paste, and staring at a monitor, just a sad rat race.Īfter your burn out, "bring in the next monkey!" simple as that.įortunately younger generations are 1000 times faster and somewhat illuminated already in their 20's. It does not resolve the main aspect of the post which is 100% true and real (ie. There is some sort of unresolved "Stockholm syndrome" that most architects have, like a sort of love hate relationship.ĭespite the true nature and ugly truth of what it really means to work in an architectural firm, at all ages and all levels, we care more to enslave ourselves into thinking that you are or will be some sort of "Zaha Hadid" and by affirming that architecture is a "noble discipline" and basically hiding working toxic reality behind a finger. Speaking from the perspective of an architectural project manager that worked for more than 15 years in all sorts of projects, reading the post and then then comments, I must observe that it goes down to some basic points:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |