Hacker News Reader

Comment by JacobJans | Hacker News Reader

I find this post incredibly off.

You are basically saying that it is pointless to be a pastry chef, and that joy in food is not significant.

I would be very, very, careful about judging what is significant to humanity and what is not.

You be the judge, but be fair about it. Does the world need more pastry chefs, or does it need more nurses? Does it need more people trying to improve on fresh strawberries, or does it need more water engineers to keep millions of people from dying of water-borne diarrheal diseases every year?

It's an easy calculation if you think big (which is what people of talent should do). If you think small, then, indeed, you can get whatever answer you want.

You're assuming that people are interchangeable cogs.

They aren't.

Most pastry chefs would be incompetent and unhappy as nurses or engineers, and vice versa.

> Most pastry chefs would be incompetent and unhappy as nurses or engineers, and vice versa.

This, though, is a subjective judgement too—even if presented as fact. Not that I disagree with your point or something.

Edit: come to think of it, it seems unlikely that many chefs were given a chance and tried training and working as nurses or engineers. So yes, I disagree with your point as well, not just scorn at subjectivity of the argument.

There is also the simple fact that there aren't enough nurses, and there aren't going to be. Baby boomers just didn't have enough kids to ensure a decent level of human care. Look at the numbers.

One thing's for sure : one person cannot make a difference here.

I'd disagree. If someone figures out the principles underlying an effective anti-Alzheimer vaccine, or anti-sarcopenia vaccine, that will be a "difference" no matter what definition is applied.

And if those Water Engineers are consumed with their jobs - and constantly stressed and depressed by the poor standing of the world - and cannot seek little pleasures in things like pastries or a craft beer or a street performer, would you say they would perform to the best of their abilities?

Could Earth use more Water Engineers? Certainly. Should people with passion be forced into pursuing careers that utilize their talents better? No way.

>Should people with passion be forced into pursuing careers that utilize their talents better? No way.

I agree with that statement but what you're saying is Peter Parker should not be forced to be a Spider-Man or Bill Gates should waste his billions on parties because he likes to party.

I'm not trying to sound socialist it's just the world would be a much better place to live if people with power and talent really took responsibility and made a good choice.

Generally people with extreme gifts or talents (and specifically the 2 examples you mentioned) find passion in their skillsets so the argument that they should do that anyways is somewhat unnecessary. And the ones who don't most likely have legitimate mental issues that would prohibit them from contributing at a consistent level. Of course there are deviations, but physchological studies have more than adequately shown the large deviation of mental stability in truly gifted individuals.

My argument is made for "normal" people.

And I don't think your opinion falls in the realm of socialism, fyi.

> physchological studies have more than adequately shown > the large deviation of mental stability in truly gifted > individuals

This is a common misconception. If, for example, one looks at physicians as a group (the occupational class with the highest so-called IQ), they are in general more stable and mentally healthier than the rest of the population.

If one ventures into the realm of savants, then those people are, by definition, not normal, so anything goes. But they are small in number.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com