3 ms·

If everyone's basic needs are covered, and they are free to pursue artistic or otherwise unnecessary pursuits to fulfill themselves, they will fast begin to com

If everyone's basic needs are covered, and they are free to pursue artistic or otherwise unnecessary pursuits to fulfill themselves, they will fast begin to compete with each other about who is the most artistic, or free-spirited, or creative. Then it will become a game to be gamed, and the sheen will wear off for a lot of people.

beambot 11y ago
Aren't artistic endeavors already plagued by this... at least to some extent? Any small microcosm will ultimately generate heated, competitive spirit -- even when the reward is minuscule and virtually meaningless. In other words: people love to compete over stupid shit.
- ekr 11y ago
  Whether it is minuscule or meaningless is isomorphically equivalent to the question of whether reproduction itself is meaningless. I'd say the meaning in this case is in the eye of the beholder. The physical reality is one and only.
  - beambot 11y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
    - T-A 11y ago
      I guess parent is suggesting the competition over stupid shit is really about signaling reproductive fitness, like a peacock's tail etc.
      - svensken 11y ago
        Cool interpretation! I like that concept. But grandparent was definitely trying to deconstruct the word "meaningless", getting a little existential in the process.
Futurebot 11y ago
I don't know if this was intended as a criticism or agreement with the person you replied to. Either way, competing on levels that are far removed from the bottom hierarchy of needs is something we should consider a good thing, whether or not the sheen wears off for some people. The problems with our hypercompetition for many of the basics are that it produces cheating because there's such intense pressure to stay/get ahead ("The Cheating Culture"), and that failure can leave you with absolute, rather than just relative, levels of privation. As far as the sheen wearing off, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. In extant communities that have no rewards outside of their status hierarchy, people continue to participate, often with great gusto: gaming, stamp collecting, meme creation, drawing, etc. People do them for both intrinsic rewards, and for status rewards only within that hierarchy or in "nearby" hierarchies. Even Trotsky thought "the powerful force of competition which, in bourgeois society, has the character of market competition, will not disappear in a socialist society, but, to use the language of psychoanalysis, will be sublimated, that is, will assume a higher and more fertile form" "individual competition will have the widest scope." In the cases where the sheen does wear off, people can always switch, as they do now, to other areas (get bored of WoW, start playing Dark Souls, or go to a completely different hierarchy [games -> painting].)

beambot 11y ago

Aren't artistic endeavors already plagued by this... at least to some extent? Any small microcosm will ultimately generate heated, competitive spirit -- even when the reward is minuscule and virtually meaningless. In other words: people love to compete over stupid shit.

ekr 11y ago
Whether it is minuscule or meaningless is isomorphically equivalent to the question of whether reproduction itself is meaningless. I'd say the meaning in this case is in the eye of the beholder. The physical reality is one and only.
- beambot 11y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
  - T-A 11y ago
    I guess parent is suggesting the competition over stupid shit is really about signaling reproductive fitness, like a peacock's tail etc.
    - svensken 11y ago
      Cool interpretation! I like that concept. But grandparent was definitely trying to deconstruct the word "meaningless", getting a little existential in the process.

Futurebot 11y ago

I don't know if this was intended as a criticism or agreement with the person you replied to. Either way, competing on levels that are far removed from the bottom hierarchy of needs is something we should consider a good thing, whether or not the sheen wears off for some people. The problems with our hypercompetition for many of the basics are that it produces cheating because there's such intense pressure to stay/get ahead ("The Cheating Culture"), and that failure can leave you with absolute, rather than just relative, levels of privation. As far as the sheen wearing off, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. In extant communities that have no rewards outside of their status hierarchy, people continue to participate, often with great gusto: gaming, stamp collecting, meme creation, drawing, etc. People do them for both intrinsic rewards, and for status rewards only within that hierarchy or in "nearby" hierarchies. Even Trotsky thought "the powerful force of competition which, in bourgeois society, has the character of market competition, will not disappear in a socialist society, but, to use the language of psychoanalysis, will be sublimated, that is, will assume a higher and more fertile form" "individual competition will have the widest scope." In the cases where the sheen does wear off, people can always switch, as they do now, to other areas (get bored of WoW, start playing Dark Souls, or go to a completely different hierarchy [games -> painting].)