I don’t speak old norse but I speak Icelandic natively. Víkingur simply means Bay-er, that is somebody from a bay. As an Icelander living in America I experience the English word “viking” as an Exonym for my identity. In Iceland we use “Nordic” or “Scandinavian”, both terms are inclusive of Finns, Sámi, and Greenlanders, so strictly speaking this is not an Enthnonym.
In Icelandic, at least to my knowledge, we have never used Víkingur as an ethnonym (well maybe during a sports game, or among right-wing nationalists). It has always meant raiders. In 2007 there was even a new word dubbed Útrásarvíkingar meaning businessmen who made a bunch of money doing business abroad (buykings would a clever translation of the term).
EDIT: I just remembered that the -ingur suffix can also be used to indicate a temporary state e.g. ruglingur (confusion) and troðningur (trampling [n.]), and was used as such e.g. að fara í víking (to embark to a viking) so víkingur could also mean, a person that embarks to a bay.
Yes, but similarity alone is not a guarantee that words are related. The words val and [h]val are not related in Swedish, even though they ended up with the same pronunciation and spelling in the modern language. Sometimes, words can end up as "fossil words" because the main usage of the word was lost.
This can also happen to word roots. Because this is about a historical word, it's interesting to look at the broader Indo-European language tree for clues about the original meaning.
I don’t think -kingur is a suffix in old norse. It is not a suffix in modern Icelandic, and I can’t think of any suffix like that.
In fact I don‘t remember a suffix which attaches to a pronoun. In modern Icelandic at least we like to introduce more pronouns or conjugate them rather then to suffix or prefix them.
If the word was broken as vi-kingur, I think the modern Icelandic would be við-kingur (or við-lingur), which is simply not a word in the language.
Argghhh! When all ye got is a 300 Baud connection and a ASR-33, then ye be thanking your lucky stars for ed! And pray that the ribbon ain't worn out, and that the paper tape don't jam!
A pox o' chads on your house, ya mewlin' landlubber!
Sounds rather far-fetched. “Viking” only started getting used as an ethonym in the 19th century. In the sagas it it only used in the meaning of raider, pirate or outlaw. The etymology of “vik” (bay) is much more plausible.
This kind of blanket ban reasoning is kind of cruel to people with genetic diseases in their family line.
"Hey, you've got a broken gene? Sucks to be you, my rigid ethics requires you to play the lottery with worse odds than the others!"
In another thread about the same subject, I mentioned the issue of color blindness, and how some professions are open to ~92% of men and ~99.5% of women (because of how it's inherited). Society seems to be quite uninterested to start some wide campaign to replace color-coded information, even during the 2010s when the equality debate was active, it was never "upgraded" to include male issues like these.
With DNA editing, this problem could be fixed on the other side (along with much more serious issues that can affect an unlucky individual).
I don't know why there is so much fear to be out-competed by a hypothetical "superhuman", when the most easy implementation of DNA editing seems to be fixing genetic diseases (often "flipping one letter" to the correct one)?
It's understandable why society would be afraid of doing such things. It feels too much like playing god. Some things can be labelled in a different way to make them more palatable. But in this case i feel the wider harm to society outweighs the potential good to the individual. Which is the same reason i don't like assisted suicide.
On the subject of colour blindness, i know many people who are colour blind and it's little more then a minor inconvenience for them. A large portion of the population probably don't even know they are colour blind. It's pretty widespread.
Everything that is on the leading edge of medical science feels like playing god and some people will loudly protest against it, but the next generation will consider the very same thing absolutely normal and expected.
IVF was once "playing god".
Heart transplants were once "playing god".
Resuscitation was once "playing god".
Surgeries of inner organs were once "playing god".
Vaccination against smallpox was once "playing god".
Then that also applies to providing it. If the solution is to provide it to everybody, you can't, so you'll have to be selective. So even creating life-saving medicine means denying it to some people. Moral dilemmas everywhere you tread, as is normal.
> But in this case i feel the wider harm to society outweighs the potential good to the individual.
This is where you have it wrong. The risk is not to society, it is to the individual. One family can take on immense risk to discover something that benefits all of humanity - whether it makes us live better, cure a disease, etc.
Yes, there are society-wide upheavals that a new technology like this might create, which you might be referring to as a "risk" - but upheavals are a fact of life all major technologies throughout human history. We will adapt.
It's not a simple debate, but you are suggesting unprecedented levels of medical intervention. It's an ethical minefield. Firstly, i'm sure this is not your intention, but you are basically suggesting we should test genetic experiments on human guinea pigs. I'm not an expert in medical ethics but i'm pretty sure it's a major no go however noble the intention (i know new treatments get tested the whole time but this is a level up from that) . You are also suggesting we should use it to solve problems as trivial as colour blindness, even without fully understanding the moral, ethical and social impacts of using gene editing in such a way.
>why society would be afraid of doing such things. It feels too much like playing god.
This I think is in some ways the most pathetic argument of them all because it reveals a profound moral cowardice. I just saw a chart today, 1 billion children under the age of five have died since 1950, a lot of them to disease. While you're afraid to play, god's racking up quite a score.
What's so astonishing about it is that the suffering doesn't seem to matter. Before modern medicine something like 20% of pregnancies ended fatally. Every time you play god what people seem to be afraid of is not the suffering, which is omnipresent because life in its natural state is pure carnage, but not having to attach your name to it and taking responsibility. It's okay if some old guy rots away miserably because if I assist in his suicide then I might make a mistake and I had to make a choice. Rather, forward it to god or nature, or what have you. And then in addition this cowardice, thinking that conscious inaction isn't an action, gets rebranded as a humanism.
I've tried designing information-dense things for colorblind coworkers, and they seemed a bit disinterested in testing it out with me. Even with tools that simulate it, you can still be off, I've found.
There can be some sensitivity about trying to figure it out with them. I've added little affordances here and there, and ironically, I rely mentally more on color coding things because I am bad at finding things in a visual field than most.
I've also found that colorblind family members and friends just never tell you and they tend to suffer in silence. Even my own half-brother (which I have a 15 year gap with) didn't tell me he was colorblind until recently.
We have become too risk averse as a species to make any real progress on this front.
Our ancestors would make the most daring bets in pursuit of a better for their children. Hunter-gatherers setting off in an unknown direction in search for more abundant pastures, knowing that their survival was unlikely.
Everything we have is thanks to them.
Today we sit on our laurels, unwilling to take trajectory-changing bets because things might go wrong. In our risk paralysis, human evolution will come to a standstill, and that is a disservice to all future humans.
No longer can an individual family or group of humans set out in that direction in search of a better future. They will be thrown in prison for daring to instead.
Maybe it's not risk-aversion, but an adjacent concept I'll call stifled freedom of action.
It's very hard to just do stuff nowadays. For example, building something on your land, selling stuff to other humans, marrying someone, immigrating somewhere, renewing your id, paying your taxes.
The immense burden of paperwork and the knowledge required to navigate it all, and the paralysis that comes from just being aware of the burden, is not trivial.
The individual really ought to stay in their lane and fit into the template that's expected of them by the systems they are subject to.
It legitimately wasn't like this a century ago. We were oppressed by nature (disease, material poverty), but in many real ways we had more freedom of action to just do life stuff.
I think it is fairly shortsighted to think that modern society is approaching "steady state" when we are on the "stick" part of the hockey stick curve of progress.
There are plenty of risks to take today (with things like gene editing - which does not mean "monoculture") and there will be plenty of trajectory-changing risks to take tomorrow.
> Our ancestors would make the most daring bets in pursuit of a better for their children.
There are numerous counterexamples to this and plenty of them worked out fine. The speed and enthusiasm we adopt new technology is unmatched by any culture with a surviving literary tradition that I'm aware of.
I often think what would happen if somebody were to engineer some sort of quasi universal cure to cancer, and they were to do it out of desperation. Say the cure works, and then this person wanted for it to reach more people right now. Would they become fugitives? Would the long arm of the law chase them to the confines of the world? What would the drugs lobby do if the billions of investment they must throw into drug certification are jeopardized by some Rambo?
"for any reason other than to cure a fatal disease" ... what about non-fatal but debilitating ? Sounds like you have a pretty absolutist view here ? What other reasonable exceptions can we imagine outside your rigid criteria ? Why should we not have nuanced discussions of the entire spectrum of reasons ?
Also hard to miss your implication of "agree with me or you are on par with a nazi"
Ask the question would you be comfortable allowing babies to be maimed or killed in a medical experiment to develop a treatment to some malady?
Make no mistake that is what we are talking about here. You are testing a therapy. Because you are editing the genome adverse effects of the therapy are irreversible and present at birth. Those adverse effects may include maiming or death.
So now that we have established what the stakes are, I ask again, what set of diseases do you think it is worth the risk of maiming and killing babies to develop a cure?
I think fatal monogenic diseases could be justifiable. But even there a valid argument could be raised about alternative approaches - ex. Cystic fibrosis.
Once you get beyond that things start getting dicey pretty quickly. Only a hop, skip, and a jump to nazi medical experiments on the “mentally retarded”. Check out the Belmont Report for more formalized ethical framework for medical experimentation on people.
Minimizing what the Nazis did is not cool and the suggestion that providing treatment for debilitating diseases to infants is ‘on par’ with murdering six million jews and millions more is honestly gross to me.
Keep your rhetoric in check before you start minimizing the Holocaust.
Your own claim was unambiguous: enrolling fetus/baby/infants (who cannot consent) in a trial for anything other than avoiding certain death is ‘on par with anything the nazis … did in WWII.’
I’m familiar with the Nazi medical experiments and how it informs modern bioethics. What you said is a significant step beyond any bioethicist consensus and trivializes the horrific mass murder that was the Holocaust.
This is really gross and there were 100 different ways for you to raise the ethical concern you're (charitably) trying to raise without comparing parents to Nazis.
> it was never "upgraded" to include male issues like these
Imagine women going through this extreme painful thing every month and the best we have is generic painkillers and stupid jokes about “the special day”. Do you know people petition their cities to remove traffic light installations for visually impaired people just because they don’t like the clicking noise?
It’s a cruel world friend. Unless you get a billionaire to care about your problem, it will take many years until there is interest and consensus to improve the situation.
> "Hey, you've got a broken gene? Sucks to be you, my rigid ethics requires you to play the lottery with worse odds than the others!"
Nobody requires you to have children. Your problem could just as easily have been infertility. So instead of gambling, you can choose to treat having a genetic disease like being infertile, or you can dabble in eugenics. My "rigid ethics" frowns on eugenics. We have lots of children who have already been born who need help. They may never satisfy your desire to see your (admittedly bad) genetics reflected in the world, but maybe they could give a legacy to your intellect and compassion?
Eugenics was once very popular among the middle and upper classes, though, before there were incidents. There's no reason to think that it won't be popular again. I think that society as a whole has to decide how we treat human lives though; your children don't strictly belong to you, they belong to themselves and are protected by the state (even against you.) I'm totally comfortable if we decide that this sort of thing is going to be criminal, or if we decide that this sort of thing is going to be mandatory. I just know where I sit on the issue.
And I also know that the places that eugenics survived was in things like dog and cat breeding, and the preferences of people for dogs and cats did not make them healthy, it made them interesting. Ready for the human version of "Twisty Cats"?
> instead of gambling, you can choose to treat having a genetic disease like being infertile ... I'm totally comfortable if we decide that this sort of thing is going to be criminal,
I was born with retinoblastoma.
You want the state to use criminal law to control my reproduction based on my genetics.
You're "totally comfortable" with that. Easy position when it's not your eyes, not your children, not your choice being criminalized.
You invoke eugenics like it's a magic word that wins the argument. But you're the one advocating for state control of reproduction based on genetic fitness. I just want to select among my own embryos.
Your adoption argument only applies to people like me - people whose genetics you call "admittedly bad." Everyone else gets to reproduce freely.
The cruelty is that you get to advocate for my childlessness from perfect safety. You'll never face the choice you want criminalized. You just get to feel righteous about it.
We are childless. We could use legal reproductive tech like IVF, but we refuse to do so on moral grounds. This is painful for us, but we accept the reality of it, because, among other reasons, we refuse to commoditize human life and to kill human beings[0] to satisfy our desire to be parents.
So please avoid the ad hominem and do not presume that moral opposition is merely some kind of flippant and insensitive response coming from those who are not affected. There are plenty of couples who make this moral decision, because they grasp the moral reality of the situation.
No one is entitled to children. No one is entitled to any kind of child. This entitlement is precisely what makes it commodification. Children are not property. They are not a product to be customized. They’re human beings, and no one is entitled to another human being. It is good and natural to want children. It is good and natural to want healthy children. It is good and natural to marry and to try to have them. But it is not good to think you deserve them or that you are entitled to have them - and to have them in a desired condition - at any cost or by any means. A real parent puts his child’s good - real or potential - before his or her own, but this attitude of entitlement gets it exactly backwards. It involved begetting children from a fundamental position of disrespect toward them as human beings and toward all those who were thrown out in the process.
While there is no moral issue in principle with gene therapies that involve correcting genetic defects in an embryo in the abstract; in practice, there is a lot we don’t know about genetics, the details of the process matter, and the flippant overconfidence of startups is worrying But doing screening and terminating ‘undesirable’ embryos is gravely immoral.
[0] An embryo is not some ontologically other that later magically transubstantiates into a human being. “Embryo” and “fetus” describe stages of human development, like “infant”, “toddler”, “teenager”, or “adult”. It boggles the mind how blind and numb we are as a society to this reality, and so easily dehumanize human life in its early stages, simply because it doesn’t look like it does at more mature stages, and because it suits our desires.
> Human life is valuable because of critical properties
Specifically, the capacity for rationality and the capacity to choose among alternatives (insects feel things, too, in their myriad insect ways). And these properties, far from being properties among many, are definitive, constitutive, essential* to what it means to be human. (The instantiation of other human properties is always as human-specific instantiations rooted in these above essential properties; while a cat also feels something analogous to human anger and experiences something analogous to the human desire for food, they are not univocal.)
In other words: human value comes from the kind of thing humans are, which is to say rational animals.
And these essential properties exist in potentia during the embryonic stage. A rock does not have the potential to be rational, nor does a dung beetle at any stage, nor do even human gametes, as their development does not lead to a rational being. But at fertilization, from that first cell when a new human being comes into existence, we have a being in the most literal sense that has exactly that rationality scheduled, as it were. And the degree of rationality we express is always a continuum. How much rationality has developed in an infant? How much rationality does a toddler express? The teenager or even most adults? A bed-ridden person with Alzheimer's in old age? A comatose patient? To say that human life at some stage or other does not possess humanity is drawing lines in the sand, an arbitrary threshold that we choose to rationalize some action we wish to take that is opposed to the good of such a being.
Not actually, but it is not identical to nonexistence. It's capacity. If something didn't first have the potential for something, it could never become actual in that manner. And which potentials something has depends on the kind of thing it is. Thus, only human beings in their early stages have the potential to be adult human beings.
You're basically committing the error of Parmenides all over again.
No, it is literally identical to nonexistence. An acorn is not an oak tree. If I were looking for objects that satisfied the properties of having a trunk and providing shade, an acorn would not qualify.
On an arbitrarily large timescale, many things have the potential to become other things. Depending on your preferred theory of abiogenesis, some frothy chemical soup on early Earth had the potential to become, and did become, all of life. This does not give the soup moral value equivalent to all of life. What matters is what things are now, not the other things they could turn into.
I disagree with your framing around embryos being human (largely because we're using our current scientific understanding to change what was intuitive into some abstraction that, itself, we don't understand - consider that pregnancy may be much more common than we know, but that otherwise 'normal' acts may harm these otherwise unknown pregnancies. Do we then prescribe the behavior of women after every sexual act they complete? But a mother causing the unintentional death of her progeny has always been wrong and socially punished.).
I do agree that we don't consider the morality of what science is allowing us to do and I appreciate your arguments.
> consider that pregnancy may be much more common than we know, but that otherwise 'normal' acts may harm these otherwise unknown pregnancies
But unintentional harm during the normal course of living is a different matter, right? There's a difference between an accident or acting out of ignorance on the one hand and intentionally harming someone. You don't provide an example of anything "normal", so I can't address it specifically.
Furthermore, moral actions involve proportionality. For instance, consider a pregnant woman who has developed cancer. Chemotherapy is quite dangerous to her child, but it may give her a very good chance of surviving. Can she licitly take chemo, knowing this risk, or even knowing that certain harm will come? Yes, she can, not because her unborn child's life is less valuable than hers, but because her life is on par with that of her unborn child, and for that reason, she may take chemo to save her life with the unintended side effect of her child's harm or even death. (She isn't using the harm or death of the child to benefit, hence "side effect".)
> I do agree that we don't consider the morality of what science is allowing us to do and I appreciate your arguments.
I appreciate your recognition. Human beings have a bad track record in the morality department, and with the power that the scientific process gives us, we are like toddlers with a a shotgun.
I'm curious where you place organisms like HeLa cell line[0] in your personal moral framework and world view on human biology.
It seems to me that you would consider the harvesting of these cells to be immoral but also that you'd consider killing these cell lines to be unacceptable.
In your opinion Henrietta Lacks still alive as long as this cell line is alive somewhere in a lab? What if the cells are frozen? If she died what remains? How is it different from an embryo?
These are good questions. Let's enumerate the essential ones.
1. Is harvesting cells in the manner of the HeLa cell line morally licit?
2. Is killing such cells morally licit?
3. Is Henrietta Lacks still alive through this cell line?
4. How are the cells in this line different from an embryo?
(1) No, I would not say this is immoral. First, these are cancer cells. If removing cancer cells from a human body is immoral, then it would follow that removing tumors would be immoral, which it isn't, because a tumor is a defect - it deviates from the norm of a healthy, functioning body and interferes with its operation. Removing such cells is a corrective procedure. It restores the body's healthy function, which is the entire point of medicine.
Now, what if the cells were healthy? Here, it would depend on the aim of doing so as well as the impact. For example, removing cells from a healthy heart because you wish to diagnose a patient with a minor illness would be bad if doing so also damaged the heart in some way surpassing the good enabled by such extraction and diagnosis.
However, say the person in question is suffering from a serious illness, and the damage or resulting risks of such an extraction is proportionately less than the good of the life-saving effect it would enable, then this would be morally licit.
(2) No, I would not find killing such cells immoral either, because...
(3) ...Henrietta Lacks is not alive anymore than a hand severed from my body and kept alive artificially is still me. Indeed, that hand is no longer a hand, because a hand is only a hand when it is a integral part of an organism and functioning as part of that organism. If you reattached that hand to my body while I am still alive, then it would be my hand.
(4) These are not embryonic cells. They will not develop into a human being.
Now, even if we ignore that they are cancerous, you may say that such cells can be modified or "reprogrammed" into embryonic cells. Yes, they can, but that involves modification. The result of that modification would not be Henrietta Lacks, but a clone, or a distinct person with the same DNA. I would reject such cloning as immoral.
--
Now, developing cell lines derived from adult cells is different from developing cell lines from the destruction of embryos, which brings us back full circle. It's the destruction of a human being in the embryonic stage that is categorically immoral.
What if, for example, a dentist refuses to remove malformed wisdom teeth because his morals don't allow him to fix problems that a person is born with, and only fixes tooth damage caused by accidents?
The taboo against genetic repairs is more comparable to antivax, rather than eugenics. Every part of the medical sciences is an intervention against "nature taking its course", in order to prevent harm to the individual.
>What if, for example, a dentist refuses to remove malformed wisdom teeth because his morals don't allow him to fix problems that a person is born with, and only fixes tooth damage caused by accidents?
If every dentist did this, the genepool would improve.
The difference between anti-vax and anti-eugenics is that eugenics makes society more fragile by producing a monoculture, whereas vaccinations make society more durable due to the network effects in the spread of disease
> If every dentist did this, the genepool would improve
I grew up in rural Kentucky. One of the worst, most ineffectual education systems on this continent.
We were still taught, very clearly, and with zero ambiguity about how genetic inheritance works.
A 7th grader in bumfuck Kentucky knows more about genetics than you've demonstrated here.
Since you apparently missed class, I'll explain: evolution by natural selection only applies when the adaptation in question affects survivability before reproducing.
A genetic problem that causes you to die or become infertile before you've had children can be evolved away. Anything that happens to you after reproductive age does not get affected by natural selection because the selection pressure of reproduction is gone.
This is called an evolutionary shadow.
Again, this is what we teach to middle school kids in rural Kentucky. You really don't have any excuse to be so ignorant.
> evolution by natural selection only applies when the adaptation in question affects survivability before reproducing
> Anything that happens to you after reproductive age does not get affected by natural selection because the selection pressure of reproduction is gone.
You are mostly correct but must also consider traits that affect the odds children will fail to reproduce. People can for example be genetically predisposed to depression or impulsive anger or substance abuse or ... any of which can impact the survival of their children thus selection pressure does not entirely disappear after a child is born.
I agree with you and I think the comment you're replying to was callous, but maybe try to show more grace in tone. HN is starting to feel a little more hostile every day, which isn't healthy for open intellectual conversation.
I am well aware of that effect and how it does not refute my claim.
If parents have some sort of health issue after reproductive age, that diminishes their ability to help their offspring.
Not to mention that juveniles also get dental problems. We live in a society where you need to get braces in order to look attractive and get a mate. We are breeding people who do not have the features they need to survive without artifical intervention.
> If every dentist did this, the genepool would improve.
Not really, especially since this is widely regarded not as much of a genetic problem, but as a difference in diet of modern society.
I am also unsure if eugentics *necessarily* brings monoculture. We did it for hundred of years to dogs, and while some races are definitely worse off than others, we literally created more than any here care to remember, and many absolutely love races I find truly ugly.
So the problem with eugenetics lies in understanding what culture lies behind it, imho. While there is a pull to uniformity, people don't like too much of the same, because instinctively you understand it loses value. No difference == no worse, but == no better too.
> "if you have bad genes, you shouldn't reproduce"
It would be, if I had said that. If I had something extremely screwed up about my genes, I definitely wouldn't reproduce, though. Reproduction is irreducibly narcissistic, even though it's fine - it's our purpose if we could be said to have one. But I don't need to watch a child suffer intensely to feed my ego.
Also I, like everyone else, have plenty in my genes that I hope my kids don't get but it doesn't keep me from having them. They can have a big noses, or weird teeth; hopefully they'll have the character to overcome it.
But I think you need to realize that people will be trying to breed extremely skinny girls with huge breasts, or extremely skinny boys with huge breasts, or that a trend will catch fire about girls with eyes really far apart because of some movie star, and there will be a generation with a million girls with brain damage and constant migraines. All because we couldn't tell wealthy people "no."
Even if we're doing eugenics as a society, it would have to be tightly regulated in every way (what do we define as an illness?), and now you instantly have government eugenics. Are you happy with that?
"But I think you need to realize that people will be trying to breed extremely skinny girls with huge breasts, or extremely skinny boys with huge breasts, or that a trend will catch fire about girls with eyes really far apart because of some movie star, and there will be a generation with a million girls with brain damage and constant migraines. All because we couldn't tell wealthy people "no.""
No wonder that you are calling yourself "pessimizer".
Maybe your confident assessment of the horrors of the future is wrong?
Uncharitably - GP likely believes (as many do) that the current zeitgeist of reproductive norms is ideal, as the possibility of it excluding themselves has never occurred to them.
There are also many (some in the comments to this post) who have excluded themselves because of it.
Not that they should have the final word the subject of course. I'm just saying you can't assume they they didn't because they have a contrary opinion.
The fundamental problem with eugenics, besides the immorality, is the misalignment of artifical selection with natural selection. The eugenicists always think they know best, but mother nature always gets the last word in the end
For better or worse, modern sanitation, medical care, industrial farming, and predator control have virtually eliminated the effects of natural selection on human genetics. Any changes going forward will inevitably be mostly artificial.
I am confused with your position. On one hand you seem to think that eugenics is bad and wrong, on the other had you have a preference on what people should and should not have children — but isn’t it literally eugenics?
Eugenics is still extremely popular and widely used in the form of sex selective abortions. This is one of the main reasons why population sex ratios are skewed in some countries.
Eugenics never went away, we just stopped calling it eugenics.
Modern forms of family planning that include access to birth control, genetic testing, abortions, and prenatal screening can empower individuals to make choices that they feel will bring about the healthiest and happiest progeny. That's eugenics.
We as a society should continue to allow individuals to make these kinds of choices rather than leave it up to fate or a central authority.
This is sad though. I'd rather see that ethics gets upgraded so some problems can be fixed.
For example, about 8% of men get excluded from certain professions such as being a train driver, due to color blindness. And society doesn't seem to care enough to switch to colorblind-friendly signaling.
With gene editing, this problem could be repaired in the other end, so that men will have the same chance as women to get perfect vision.
I was hoping that this article would be about a hypothetical future where people have evolved to have a lower amount of bravery and a lower "fighting spirit", so that they're simply to afraid to fly fighter jets or be nuclear submarine captains.
Phonemics is more important than phonetics for these things. Sometimes two sounds need to be represented with the same letter if they are similar and their difference is context-dependent.
Then there's also the etymology and handling of grammatical endings. Polish spelling would be more difficult without "rz" for example, despite its two sounds already existing elsewhere in the spelling system.
"Context dependent" here means a different thing than it means in English, where the pronunciation of letters depends on the word they're in, without any hard rule. To the point of being pronounced in different ways even in homonyms: e.g. "tear" noun and "tear" verb.
The fact that there are a few rules on how to pronounce combinations of letters (and even a few exceptions here and there) has nothing to do with the total mess that is English.
Would it be sane to have a special letter to distinguish the "p" in "park" from the "p" in "spark"? In some languages, it's important, but these two sounds can be represented by the same letter in others because they don't "compete" for the same contexts.
>Why do we have all these studies showing that male and female behaviors are so similar, yet people in everyday life continue to think as if males and females were very separable?
It could be that some gender-neutral behavior patterns are part of the modern Western equivalent of "tatemae", and that they easily appear in studies because of interaction with strangers.
Higher chances of your paper getting rejected because it mentioned gender differences would be enough incentive for academics to mention it as little as possible.
Maybe this is how the branches of Indo-European evolved.
Laryngeals replaced by vowel lengthenings, merging of consonsants, vowel shifting based on other sounds, etc. It's like there were many different events where "Indo-European with a heavy foreign accent" suddenly emerged.
Social media no longer represents "many people are saying it".
The early internet could give an overview of what's being said in general on a particular topic - but today's content is often manipulated to support or attack a particular viewpoint.
You don't need to explain with malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
In fact that's one of the roads to fascism - constantly looking for "manipulators" everywhere and other witch hunt types.
The longer I live the more I am convinced that the average person has next to 0 ability for critical thinking. They just sort of stumble between local maximas until they end up wherever they are.
> In fact that's one of the roads to fascism - constantly looking for "manipulators" everywhere and other witch hunt types.
Bollocks. Studies suggest as much as 35% of social media posts are fake, and as high as 40% on some forums. This isn't Fascism or paranoia, this is just how large tech companies make money. Like, if you don't understand how AI and scripting align with marketing and propaganda goals then you're gonna get played like a rube every time.
The problem is that "marketing works even when you understand how marketing works", and that it is very hard to maintain constant vigilance.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur...
Compare Ancient Greek [w]oikos, and all the various ves, vas, wieś, which can be found all over Eastern Europe.