10 ms·
Among the dubious claims that the author provides no back-up for I found this gem: > Plus, in many modern-day societies, unemployment can also be downright bor
by bko 10y ago
Among the dubious claims that the author provides no back-up for I found this gem:
> Plus, in many modern-day societies, unemployment can also be downright boring. American towns and cities aren’t really built for lots of free time: Public spaces tend to be small islands in seas of private property, and there aren’t many places without entry fees where adults can meet new people or come up with ways to entertain one another.
Really? I feel the market for entertainment and those interested in niche activities is as rich as it has ever been.
> “Sometimes people retire from their work, and they don’t know what to do,” Gray says. “They’ve lost the ability to create their own activities.” It’s a problem that never seems to plague young children. “There are no three-year-olds that are going to be lazy and depressed because they don’t have a structured activity,” he says.
I've read the opposite from PG, who suggests that children are now unhappy and depressed because they have no purpose. Many parents are just using schools as daycare [0]
> But need it be this way? Work-free societies are more than just a thought experiment—they’ve existed throughout human history. Consider hunter-gatherers, who have no bosses, paychecks, or eight-hour workdays. Ten thousand years ago, all humans were hunter-gatherers, and some still are.
The authors romanticizing such lifestyles are free to build a cabin in the woods. But one should understand the accompanying poverty that would accompany such a decision.
I could go on...
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
- dublinben 10y agoHunter-gatherer societies have absolutely nothing to do with 'building a cabin in the woods' or poverty. They represent a highly social period in human development that lasted for tens of thousands of years. It has been argued that we have never been as happy or healthy ever since.[0] [0] http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
- js2 10y agoAlso, for a philsophical take on it, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)
- CydeWeys 10y agoHunter-gatherer societies don't allow for all the advantages of civilization, including modern medicine. So long as you don't over-eat yourself into obesity you're way healthier now than you would've been as a hunter-gatherer. Besiders, hunting/gathering is a dead end -- it doesn't lead off this planet, which is ultimately what we'll need in order to not be a forgotten about galactic footnote.
- gkya 10y agoWe're going nowhere anyways.
- elif 10y ago[EDIT: removed the scientifically valueless bits] Almost all of my illnesses have been contracted either at work or from my partner who contracted it at work. I think it is also worth noting that our current capital-centric trajectory does not lead off of this planet either. We are far closer to global catastrophe than we are to extraterrestrial colonization.
- notahacker 10y agoAnecdata versus an increase in life expectancy from the mid-20s to around 80 isn't a very compelling argument against the benefits from modern medicine...
- WalterBright 10y agoMost of the modern increase in life expectancy has come from clean water, plenty of nutritious food, and vaccines against childhood diseases.
- Spooky23 10y ago> Most of the modern increase in life expectancy has come from clean water, plenty of nutritious food, and vaccines against childhood diseases. ... All of which have been driven by the application of lessons learned by public health doctors and scientists.
- openasocket 10y agoI just don't get this argument: are people seriously claiming that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better for us than our modern society? In the modern world life expectancy is significantly higher, as is prenatal and neonatal care. People in the modern world are far less likely to die of infectious disease, starvation, or really any form of violent/"unnatural" (meaning not due to old age) death. And how could you measure the happiness of hunter-gatherers relative to people in the modern world?
- notahacker 10y agoIt's a myth popularised by anthropologists like Diamond who compare it to primitive agriculture and conclude that the farmers were worse off in many respects. But even if hunter-gathering was a local optimum (which is questionable, considering that for the lifestyle to be sustainable neighbouring human tribes had to be killed off or driven away), I can't really conceive how a life expectancy of 26 with no fixed abode, education or lifestyle choice can be considered as anything other than poverty by today's standards.
- lawpoop 10y agoThe 26 life-expectancy is an average, not when people actually die. It's brought down by high infant mortality.
- notahacker 10y agoSure, and the level of infant mortality was dramatically higher than it is today, higher even than most societies living in extreme poverty. I doubt many hunter gatherers survived into their eighties either.
- forkandwait 10y agoThe argument i have heard is that hunting gathering is far more intellectually stimulating and easier on your body than being a peasant or low skill factory worker, who probably don't have any more to eat or better Healthcare and shelter. Quite plausible for 80% of the population pre 1900.
- wil421 10y agoHappy? Healthy? I'm sure it was the happy hunter gatherers who built Stonehedge[1] and possibly used the area for happy human sacrifice[2]. Not to mention the probable rape and killing of groups of gatherers [3]. I can't even imagine the hunger and famine they had to endure if the herds didn't migrate in the same pattern one year. Or if a harsh winter killed off your gathering food. What about all the worms and parasites they probably had. If you look at hunter gatherers today they are all short and thin. [1]http://www.history.com/news/encampment-discovered-near-stonehenge-could-rewrite-british-history-experts-say http://www.history.com/news/encampment-discovered-near-stone... [2]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/why-was-this-man-sacrificed-at-stonehenge/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/why-wa... [3]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massacre-suggests-hunter-gatherers-went-war http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massac...
- Spooky23 10y agoThe folks doing the pillaging and sacrificing were probably quite happy with themselves.
- beat 10y agoNot having "work" in the sense we have today isn't going to lead to plows and bandages ceasing to exist. To that point, there are many people who would, if freed from the need to "work for a living", happily be farmers. The happiest people I know are the farm family that provides our CSA food. And they take more pride in their farm than someone riding a tractor to spray Monsanto chemicals all day. They love their work. If someone gave them a million dollars and they would never need money again, they'd still run the farm just as they do now (although they might give the food away). Likewise, doctors! People become doctors to heal the sick, not to get rich. Virtually every doctor I've ever met is completely passionate about their job, frustrated mostly by the money-driven bureaucracy, not the patients. And they were taught by professors who couldn't be any happier than they are, teaching a new generation of doctors how to save lives. Most jobs worth doing would gladly be done for free. If you look at a job and realize that no one would do it if they weren't paid a lot of money (or were desperately trying to stay off the street), you have to wonder if that job should be done at all.
- shkkmo 10y agoThis is a red herring. The article in question is not advocating a return to hunter-gatherer societies, it is utilizing them as a means to look what a what a society without post-industrial-jobs might could look like in terms of daily life and hapiness.
- andrepd 10y agoIt has been argued so by persons that cherry pick evidence to support that claim. The most straightforward explanations don't come to those conclusions.
- beatpanda 10y agoHave you ever tried to build a cabin in the woods? Or attempt to live a lifestyle outside of the employment/consumption hampater wheel? There are many, many roadblocks in place to prevent people from doing this. You are generally not free, at least in the U.S., to build a cabin in the woods.
- Shivetya 10y agoYou might be missing the trees for the forest when it comes to boring. One of the major failings of public schools and society in general is we do not teach people how to effectively use their idle time. Then to top it off we don't encourage use of it either. Contributing back to society through actions not necessarily normally compensated needs to be brought out as a worth endeavor for employed, the unemployed, the unemployable, and so on. From an early age we should encourage helping others and volunteering. This is not the same as "you have a nice pencil set and bookbag and should be forced to share it" its the idea that when you have free time here are things you can do to improve yourself and the world around you. Then we get government and charitable organizations a means to easily communicate to all the opportunities available. Being idle can really wreck the mind and soul. Never underestimate it
- bko 10y ago> One of the major failings of public schools and society in general is we do not teach people how to effectively use their idle time On a side note, most of my uni-lingual friends have often bemoaned not knowing another language despite taking it in school for 3 to 4 years. Not only has the school failed at teaching them basic proficiency of foreign language, the failure has convinced them of the futility of the effort. Talk about unintended consequences...
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoReally? I feel the market for entertainment and those interested in niche activities is as rich as it has ever been. Right. If you have money to spend on those. The author is talking about things people can do for free on public land - ostensibly what you would need to occupy people if they had no work or money to spend on leisure.
- forgetsusername 10y ago>I've read the opposite from PG, who suggests that children are now unhappy and depressed because they have no purpose. Dr. Gray is a long-time professor of psychology who has written a book about the subject. What are Paul Graham's qualifications in regards to this topic? What research has he done? Dubious claims, indeed.
- shkkmo 10y ago> The authors romanticizing such lifestyles are free to build a cabin in the woods. I don't think the author is saying we should all become hunter gatherers. I think the author is using those hunter gather cultures as examples of one where a lack of constant work doesn't bring negative consequences. You are nitpicking the author's (somewhat poorly made) argument, but not making a counter argument of your own. As far as I can tell, the counter argument runs this way (please correct me if this is not the argument you are trying to make): 1) People need to work to feel purpose and be happy. 2) People will only work if it is necessary in order to feed, clothe and house themselves. 3) Therefor we must make access to food, clothing and housing contingent on work so that people will be happy. I have several issues with this argument. The first is that 1) and 2) clearly do not apply to everybody, but to some unknown portion of the population. There is little evidence as to what those proportions are, which makes the argument difficult to evaluate effectively. My second problem with this argument is that the underlying assumption that we should deny people the choice to be purposeless and unhappy. This seems like an very presumptuous and authoritarian premise. To allow people the freedom to pursue happiness necessitates allowing them the freedom to choose unhappiness.
- tn13 10y ago> The authors romanticizing such lifestyles are free to build a cabin in the woods. But one should understand the accompanying poverty that would accompany such a decision. Totally spot on. A lot of people these days are romanticizinglife as "close to nature" which is in reality life of poverty, deprivation and lack of serious opportunity. Not to mention it might even be lot more harmful to nature as well. I grew up in a remote village in India. When I moved to USA my father taunted me that he was enjoying the beautiful natural atmosphere of the village while I toiled in AC office and wasting hours in traffic. He told me how my kids will never experience the joy of catching a turtle in hand or knowing how a Jackfruit tree looks like. He recently visited me in SF and I took him to see the brilliant botanical garden in SF, took him to California's farms and ranches and once in Yosemite we saw several deers crossing the road. He was almost speechless because deers had gone extinct in our village because of poaching. Not to mention he also found the air here cleaner than the village air. (Villagers burn plastic and other garbage in open air).