Having a science/tech/maker YouTuber as a role model is arguably better than, say, a fashion model, an actor, a populist podcaster, or a footballer, no?
You have YouTubers versions of all these, plus more (YouTube body builder, YouTube gamer, etc). The difference is people want to be famous on YouTube, instead.
Most YouTubers that kids use as role models are simply questionable entertainers and pranksters, so I’d say on average, it is much worse than having a footballer as a role model…
I would say no. I don't think one can adopt this stance without thinking less of people who pursue those activities. And I'd rather show kids humility, as opposed to superiority.
I do find it tiring that tech oriented people still feel the need to denigrate people who are in the arts or athletes (tbh lumping them in with podcast grifters may be the greatest insult). Children can and should have a variety of role models.
Especially when we have seen over and over again that some youtubers (not pointing at any at this even specifically) have shown themselves to be of quite low character.
There are plenty of pro sports icons that have low character. Good character is not a qualification to put a ball through a goal, hole, hoop or elsewhere, in pro sports or on youtube.
I don't know any "tech oriented" people that put down anyone "in the arts", but most of them have no interest in sports. That doesn't mean they denigrate anyone in sports, but as for myself I do find humanity's fascination with putting balls into goals, holes, hoops and elsewhere a bit tiring, and I think it's a bit of a waste of humanity to put so much importance on putting balls into goals, holes, hoops or elsewhere, but we are all free to have our own opinions.
> I think it's a bit of a waste of humanity to put so much importance on putting balls into goals, holes, hoops or elsewhere
Sports can be seen as something of an improvement over more lethal forms of inter-group conflict.
Fortunately tech oriented folks have invented "e-sports", which are competitions based on pressing keys on a keyboard or buttons on a game controller, and possibly moving and clicking a mouse in order to affect pixels on a screen.
Games and game-like systems provide many benefits:
Simulations are particularly valuable because they allow you to test out strategies for risky activities (wars, investments or business ventures, gambling, etc.) without actual risk.
Twitch/reflex games like first-person shooters can improve eye-hand coordination. It's a fun recreational and social activity that can also help surgeons make fewer mistakes.
Narrative games are largely a modern form of storytelling, one of humanity's oldest and most important cultural practices.
Social games can build connection and teamwork; cozy games can facilitate relaxation; construction games can facilitate creative expression and spatial reasoning....
The reason people like games is because they are fun; but the reason games are fun is that they engage - and often challenge - the abilities that we use to interact with the real world.
Most of the comments from this four-day-old account are breaking the guidelines and abusing the HN community so we've banned it. You're welcome to contact us at hn@ycombinator.com and ask us to unban the account if you want to start using HN as intended.
Because it means we no longer have a service based economy, but that we now live in a jester-based economy. Science isn't necessarily flashy and loud, it's a lot of hard, often thankless work. Long hours in a lab away from friends and family and even people.
We can't all be the center of attention. society has a lot of other roles that need to be filled, but if everyone only wants to be the star, a lot of roles just won't happen. This is why UBI won't work. We should absolutely help poor people survive and live dignified lives, but UBI is a cop-out.
>we no longer have a service based economy, but that we now live in a jester-based economy.
In which way jester-services is worse than any other types of services?
>Science isn't necessarily flashy and loud, it's a lot of hard, often thankless work.
And in most cases it is more useless than the work of jesters
>society has a lot of other roles that need to be filled, but if everyone only wants to be the star, a lot of roles just won't happen
We do not live under communism, so "everyone only wants to be the star" does not imply that society is obliged to fulfill this desires. The market will fill these roles even if everyone wants to be the star.
