How quickly we accepted that it’s normal to pay someone to go get our groceries for us. To drive us around when public transportation is available. To run errands for us. To bring us fast food.

Covid capitalized on it.

People don’t want to give up that luxury now that they’ve had it. Even if it makes things cost 2x-3x as much.

Even when we all know its exploitive labor.

It’s true delivery and driver services have been around for hundreds of years but now instead of companies with full time employees (with benefits) , the gig employee gets paid less while taking on risk that aren’t compensated by the employer (car accidents, gas, car repairs, injury or attacks).

Gig work is a much worse thing than maybe a lot of people realize. And it’s also making more people servants to others.

It’s moving full time employees with benefits and using company property to no benefits and using their own property that they have to pay for.

  • Mountainaire@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 hours ago

    We need to stay fully objective here and acknowledge that @devolution@lemmy.world is at least partly correct:

    “Some genetic heritability studies have noted there may be baseline deviations in emotional processing circuitry (such as in the amygdala or reward centers of the brain) and neurotransmitter profiles (such as serotonin or dopaminergic deficits) in people meeting criteria for psychopathic traits that may eventually lead to callous behaviors and indifference towards social norms (but interestingly not always).” - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-shrink/202203/are-psychopaths-born-or-made

    Denser reading:

    In the specific genes that may be involved, one gene that has shown particular promise in its correlation with ASPD is the gene that encodes for monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A), an enzyme that breaks down monoamine neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine. Various studies examining the gene’s relationship to behavior have suggested that variants of the gene resulting in less MAO-A being produced (such as the 2R and 3R alleles of the promoter region) have associations with aggressive behavior in men.[77][78]

    This association is also influenced by negative experiences early in life, with children possessing a low-activity variant (MAOA-L) who have experienced negative circumstances being more likely to develop antisocial behavior than those with the high-activity variant (MAOA-H).[79][80] Even when environmental interactions (e.g., emotional abuse) are taken out of the equation, a small association between MAOA-L and aggressive and antisocial behavior remains.[81]

    The gene that encodes for the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4), a gene that is heavily researched for its associations with other mental disorders, is another gene of interest in antisocial behavior and personality traits. Genetic association studies have suggested that the short “S” allele is associated with impulsive antisocial behavior and ASPD in the inmate population.[82] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

    I didn’t know this until now myself (I’ve seen the above article earlier but must have skimmed through it long ago and missed or forgot all that). However, there’s also a lot about the environment further exposing or shutting down sociopathic tendencies, as I noted in another comment here. It could be more difficult to round up these people (who are masters at lying anyway) versus enacting your systemwide proposal to forcefully integrate empathy through all levels of society. The problem is applying it to the highest echelons where it matters most—and, frankly, who @devolution@lemmy.world’s proposed guillotine should apply to the most either way; they’d both be hard to do… maybe together?

    • daannii@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      1·
      5 hours ago

      Psychopathy is a combination of genetics and environmental factors. Genetics does not cause this condition. You can have the genes associated with higher prevalence but that does not mean you will have it.
      This is why eugenics for behavioral or personality factors is irrelevant.

      Also these are not necessarily hereditary but likely are common mutations that will persist in the gene pool regardless if current people with said gene are sterilized.

      Genetic research, not to sound pretentious, is largely misunderstood.

      When a study says genetics are 30%. It means genetics account for 30% of the variance.

      The variance is not “effect”. Or how much a gene contributed to the trait.

      It’s a bit more complicated. But to make a simple example.

      Let’s think of height.

      Let’s say someone has a gene(s) for being tall.

      But the person grew up malnourished. It doesnt matter, the kid won’t be tall. But will the kid be taller than other malnourished kids with out the gene. ? Probably. But it’s hard to say by how much.

      Will the kid be taller than other kids that werent malnourished.

      Maybe. Maybe not.
      If extreme malnourished, the answer is no.

      Ultimately the environment determines how much effect a gene(s) can determine a trait.

      That’s why you can’t measure a general effect % from a gene(s).

      Instead we measure how much variation in a group of people with a given trait is predicted by a gene.

      “The wiggle room”. A gene is best thought of as the limits of a trait. Each extreme.

      When it’s in optimal environment to be expressed and when it’s in the most restricted environment to be expressed.

      Even in average environments, genetics still usually doesn’t account for more that 30-40% of the variance for people who score within 1 standard deviation of the mean/average of a trait. And that number declines the farther you get from the mean.

      And also most genetics don’t score that high. Very few are as high as 30%.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variance