Soon, I'll be on a cruise with my elderly father. It really is the best and perhaps only kind of travel for him: no flights, no anxieties about language or getting lost or meals, all costs up front, private bathroom etc. But I'm also aware that cruises are really quite terrible as a human invention. I've got some ideas on making it up on the environmental and financial front.

Is there anything I could do about the human side of things?

I just saw Triangle Of Sadness with my partner and while we loved the film, it's also making me think about in what ways could I try to relate to the crew that will be taking care of me, without just adding more stress and burden and hypocrisy into the situation?

Could I ask Tildes members to critique these suggestions and offering some of their own?

1. Money. Cash on the first day or when we leave? From basic research it seems the built in gratuities are shared as a pool whereas drink and cash tips are personal.

2. Little notes of thank you left in the room or handed to the assined cabin staff person?

3. Small gifts? What would be acceptable and not "oh wow this person gave me junk gee thanks"

4. I'm wasting my time and being a hypocrite. Just don't even go or because I'm set on going, save the theatrics and live with the guilt?

Fair warning, I'm a dummy trying to talk about stuff I don't fully understand, but I wanted to see others' thoughts on this.

In the 1960s, America's GDP (per capita) was $3,000.
Also, in 1960, the federal poverty limit was $3,000 for a family of four.

In 2023, the GDP (per capita) was $82,034.
The federal poverty limit for a family of four in 2023 was $30,000.

This can't be good for the American people. Unless I'm drawing comparisons between two completely unrelated things?

People who are barely in poverty today would have to earn ~2.7x the amount they earn to stay consistent with those who were barely in poverty in the 1960s if GDP and FPL were still equal to each other. So what about the families caught in the middle? Too high earnings to get help and too low to thrive? They just suffer, I guess.

Out of curiosity, I calculated what the thresholds would be if the percentages of GDP to FPL were swapped between 2023 and 1960.

1960s numbers adjusted if FPL matched 2023's percentage:
GDP=$3,000
FPL=$1,111

1960s numbers adjusted if GDP matched the percentage comparison of 2023:
GDP=$8,100
FPL=$3,000

Please let me know if it actually matters that the GDP per capita is 2.7x the federal poverty limit for a family of four. Also, let me know your thoughts.

Paradise is an exciting action sci fi with a really interesting premise. What if eternal youth, was available to anyone with money... yet it involved literally sucking the life force out of others less fortunate than yourself?



The movie focuses on Max, who after his wife is unexpectedly forced to give up 40 years of her life, he desperately searches for a way to get her youth back.

The movie is filled with the usual plot twists, cool sci fi graphics, true love and the like.



There are two truly interesting elements to this movie. The first is the cynical idea that if the rich could live forever, then they would be much more motivated to think about and solve for the long term health of the planet.

In this movie, only the rich can afford to extend their lives for as long as they choose, so we also see how that would severely impact wealth inequality. 



The second interesting element of this movie is a series of questions very similar to the trolley problem. If you could extend your life, at the cost of someone else's youth, would you, assuming they were somehow reimbursed financially?

What if your youth had been taken from you; or what if youth had been taken from someone you loved. Would you take it back? Would you take it back as ethically as possible, or ethics be damned?

Could you give up your youth to save a loved one from an extremely unkind yet uncertain end, or is it easier to risk your life to save theirs than it is to give up eternal youth once you have it?



At one point in the movie, we learn it is easier to take someones life passively through the forces of economics and medical science, than it is to actively kill someone with a gun to their head. Which is the essence of the trolley problem. But it is also the essence of wealth inequality.

We could easily flip the switch, to improve the quality of life and length of life for many people, at the cost of one rich persons riches, but those with power passively choose to not do so. The movie doesn't philosophize anywhere near as much as I am doing right now, instead focusing on fast action, true love and cool sci fi. But I think perhaps this movie is a very subtle warning to the rich. At a certain point of wealth inequality, some portion of the population will want their fair share of the wealth, ethics be damed.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81288179

I often engage in thoughtful discussions with my friends regarding our current socio-economic situation, and I find it challenging to discover a more fitting description than the term coined for it.

Wherever I direct my attention, I observe life increasingly being shaped by the well-oiled machinery of capitalism, a system devoid of inherent morals and existing solely to maximize profits for its shareholders.

To me, the notion of "late stage" capitalism implies a bleak future fueled by the insatiable demand for constant and unsustainable growth. This, in turn, hampers our ability to effectively plan for the future, as investors prioritize immediate gains. Consequently, our planet suffers the repercussions through climate change and the exacerbation of wealth inequality.

Moreover, the ruling of FEC vs Citizens United, wherein corporations were granted the ability to lobby as individuals, seems to have unleashed a relentless flywheel that perpetuates and nourishes the insatiable beast of capitalism and greed.

I am genuinely intrigued by the perspectives of others on this topic. If we collectively recognize that we are heading in an unfavorable direction, what steps can we take to regain a more positive trajectory? How can we incentivize prioritizing moral values and environmental impact over monetary gains?

Conventional wisdom tells us money does not buy happiness, perhaps the opposite. "Studies" (don't quote me on this, just going off headlines/articles I've read) say happiness grows asymptotically and levels off around an income of 70k USD (perhaps more like 90k inflation adjusted?). I would be interested to know how any of this matches your personal experience. Has your happiness consistently grown with income? If so, where did that growth level off, if at all? And to what would you attribute it? better consumer goods, more security, more freedom...? Have any of you experienced a decrease in happiness associated with growing income? I eagerly await your thoughts!