Jackalgirl!
1 When I proposed to use Holy Resurrected Language as global lingual frank for all God believers worldwide you proposed Esperanto.
Because it's easy to learn and does not supplant the speaker's own natural, native language. What you are proposing is exactly the opposite: a natural language, by nature difficult to learn, and from what I can tell you intend it to supplant speakers' native tongue and become the global natural language.
2 When I proposed to your husband - Evangelistic Church pastor to become the main person in process of learning the Resurrected Language of their God by kids of 200 millions Evangelistic Christians all over the world your husband has refused.
Because he doesn't agree that this is necessary. He is not of the type who believe that you have to learn a specific language in order to form a closer bond with God.
Evangelistic Christians recognize officially Resurrection of Israel state, Israel Chosen People and God Language.
Yes, Hebrew is the official national language of the current state of Israel.
Next logical step – to make God Language native to your children but you and your husband strongly oppose.
One: it would not be logical unless my husband and I were planning to move the family to Israel. We're not. Also, I'm not Christian, so none of the religious underpinnings of your plan interest me
at all.
3 You focus on my not so good English.
The point I am trying to get across -- and, apparently, I'm failing to do so -- is that your English is not "not so good". It's
barely comprehensible*. Occasionally I can get the gist of what you're trying to say, but that's because I have to make guesses. If you're going to try to persuade someone who speaks another language, you'd better be understandable in that other language (or confirm that they're competent in your own language and stick to that).
Why don’t you focus on my calculation that proves that to reach standard life quality today we need in 3.2 times more working hours a week at everyone family member that we had 50 years ago.
So the average inflation of value of one working hour was 320% for last 50 years.
The inflation of dollar for last 50 years is 628%.
Wage increasing for last 50 years is 1077%.
Life standard quality increasing for last 50 years only at 1077/628=1.71times.
It is a very bad social result for global rapid science technical progress for last 50 years.
One point: you haven't shown us the calculations themselves. Just the end products. "I did this calculation and came up with these numbers!" Well, I can come up with numbers, too.
Another point: as a woman, I'm not particularly enamored with the idea of life 50 years ago. I am an active duty sailor in the United States Navy. Fifty years ago, the idea of me going to sea and my husband staying at home with the children would have been unheard of. So please excuse me if I don't have starry-eyed dreams of the wonderfulness of the 1950s.
On a work side, your "symmetrical lifestyle" would be completely incompatible with the mission & needs of the Navy.
4 About myth of needful of twice increasing staff – to achieve symmetrical lifestyle.
Let us propose that we have enterprise that works 24 hours a day all year long.
It means that it is a very successful business that has full pocket of orders.
Most people today work in this type of business in three shifts – day time, evening time, night time 7 working hours averagely.
Every week they have to change their shift and time when the must sleep.
There is a paradox – those type of business organization are extremely effective because all technological equipment works 24 hours a day all year but most staff who must every week change there working shift fill physically bad.
In symmetrical lifestyle the same quantity of workers from those 3 shifts will be organized in 4 shifts that work 26 weeks a year, 60 hours a week, with one day off a week.
In future almost all competitive businesses will work 24 hours a day all year and people will live in symmetrical life style with 26 weeks of creative vocation a year.
You are essentially describing a factory job. There is, generally speaking, a great amount of flexibility possible in a repetitive job that requires little, or at least very specialized, skill. Yes, a "symmetrical lifestyle" might work for this, though it does not adequately address the family dimension (which I will get to in a moment, since you go on to talk about it).
You need to understand, however, that
not all businesses are factories. Projects involving creativity and/or complex technological skills (example: engineering, programming) will suffer if, every three weeks, they have to be handed off to another person. That's just the nature of the beast. Businesses that provide highly-technical services are another that wouldn't work with regular turnover (example: law, medicine). And management is another activity that will suffer from high turnover -- perhaps not in a factory where the job is the same, day in and day out -- but in any business that does a variety of complex creative design/construction or provides any kind of services whose demands change on a daily (or hourly) basis is not going to work under your plan.
In working time people will see their kids with ability to communicate with them using computer communications systems.
If something wrong at school or in the street with their kids – parents can adjust the situation immediately.
I hope you are not suggesting that children be home alone while both parents are off at work, somehow monitoring the situation from there. You do realize that parenting is a full-time job, right? It requires the actual, active presence of a competent adult whose attention is
not focused on, say, the needs of another full-time job.
If you're suggesting that one of the parents stays with the kids while the other works and the working parent would be able to fulfill both his/her own parenting needs as well as the child's via telepresence, you're out of your mind.
You're also out of your mind if you think a teenager is going to pay
the slightest attention to what a parent says over the phone unless there are real consequences that involve actual parental presence.
Formally you had in previous model of job organization 3 workers on a job place and symmetrical life demands 4 workers on a same job place.
So formally in the case when you don’t want to change absolutely anything you have to increase your staff at 33% - the same present you decrease the working week and not twice of course.
But in reality in most businesses we need not do it.
Every business owner can find reserves to increase effectiveness of work.
No. I've already pointed out why this is not necessarily so. It will not help the economy or my buying power if businesses have to increase their staff by a third.
I don't disagree with you that many businesses could become more efficient (a LOT more efficient, in some cases). However, I don't think that this can universally be done by a fixed amount. As I have pointed out, above, not all businesses do the same thing. Trying to come up with one fixed plan for all businesses is a really bad idea. It'll work great for some and be absolutely devastating for others.
Also, let me point out that the point of a reserve is that it's there when you need it, and is not ever expected to become a permanent feature of the business. If you use your reserves regularly, they cease to be the reserves, and now you have no reserves. Now, when you're in trouble, you have no reserves. It's not a good thing.
In future development of symmetrical lifestyle world people will not work 10 hours shifts they will work not more than 8 working hours shifts, one day a week off and 26 weeks of creative vocation.
All businesses will work 24 hours all year but symmetrical lifestyle people no more than 48 hours a week.
Transport, hospitals, restaurants,theaters,schools, universities, scientist laboratories, government organizations, shops, sport clubs will work effectively 24 hours a day with out days off. in symmetrical lifestyle society of lifelong high educated multiprofessional persons.
See, here's where I'm getting terribly confused. Your model business is a clearly a factory. Now you're saying that this is the dream setup for "lifelong high[ly-]educated multiprofessional persons", whose businesses by their very nature
are not factories. Which is it?
5 About drugs’ abusing.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/he...ments-best-buy-drugs-antidepressants-rep.html
Between 1996 and 2005, the rate of those reporting they had used antidepressants in the past year jumped from 5.8 percent to 10.1 percent. On a national scale, this translates to an increase from about 13.3 million people to 27 million.
We note in our new Best Buy Drug report on antidepressants that 60 percent to 70 percent of people with depression don’t receive the treatment they need.
So it is clear that others 54 millions instead antidepressants use marijuana and drugs.
May be somebody is waiting when all high developed world society will become antidepressant users or different drugs’ and alcohol abusers to change ordinary running from freedom lifestyle to symmetrical one – running for freedom.
When you are quoting text, you need to use the quote tags, as I have done above.
Now, questions: "those reporting that they had used antidepressants in the past year jumped from 5.8 to 10.1 percent" of what? Of the reporting group? Who were the reporting group, and how were those persons chosen? How do you get to 54 million? Are you talking about people diagnosed with depression, or people projected to be depressed? You do realize that some people with medical conditions such as depressions, who aren't taking prescribed medicines,
might not be taking any medicines at all, right? I don't know how you're drawing the conclusion that the only options for people with a disease are legal, doctor-prescribed medication on one side, and illegal self-medication on the other.
In fact, this is usually the problem: a person with a medical condition who does not take his or her meds at all (or doesn't go to see a doctor to get diagnosed, and thusly the disease remains untreated).
You are so strange. You provide statistics, then using them to draw completely unsupported conclusions, simply on the basis of some kind of connection between your conclusion and the numbers. It's sort of like stating something like, "last year, there was a reported increase of crime of 54%. Obviously, this is because some doughnuts are more yummy than others, resulting in less cops on the street. Under symmetrical doughnut style, all doughnuts will taste uniformly the same, so there will be no crime."
*This post was a little better than others, but I still had to make a lot of assumptions about what you were trying to say.
