4 ms·

> But instead, "society" says they have to work to have a worth I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predato

> But instead, "society" says they have to work to have a worth I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. > We're coming of an age, where machines can increasingly provide more and more, and we are still addicted to human labor and that connection of self-worth. This isn't about "human" labor, it's about working in general. Perhaps your occupation is designing, improving, or repairing these machines you speak of. That is work, and has a noticeable impact - opposed to camping, hiking, sipping coffee, and existing for the sake of existing. tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team.

branchless 10y ago
I don't agree with this. The vast majority of govts around the world are facilitating inequality. In the last decade how many amazingly intelligent people who could have furthered the whole world have missed out? We'll never know, but I bet it's a lot. Most heads of govt are megalomaniacs. I agree we have a drive to improve but our current system is a long way from efficient by design.
kefka 10y ago
> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Whereas most anthropological and genetic studies indicate that homo sapiens did not "win", but instead we mated with them and joined the disparate species. > Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. Sigh. And here we go, with moralizing capitalistic thought with expansion and growth. You pack in the assumption that capitalism pushes society forward and will continue to do so. I also seem to remember the Wright bros story. They patented the aeropane in the US, whereas it was free to use elsewhere. They locked down the industry so it was their way or no way. Eventually, the US military had to step in, due to WWI, and end their protections. In the end, capitalism is great at looking that it furthers science and the arts. But the bad sides are that it: 1. retards cooperation between different entities 2. pits person against person 3. encourages to maximize money against all other means > tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team. Don't worry. You wouldn't be on my "team" anyways. It'd be your loss, given I know many things, including many arts and sciences from the SCA.
- tigershark 10y ago
  I don't really think that most studies indicate that. Any proof about your claim? As far as I remember there is possible evidence of some interbreeding, but it absolutely is not the cause of Neanderthal disappearance. As for the anti-capitalism rant please tell me that you have visited Russia, east Europe, Venezuela and the awesome places in the world where the capitalist evil has been destroyed for some time. And once you go there please feel free to stay if you enjoy it so much. I have seen some of those places and, thanks a lot, but I prefer the evil capitalism by far.
sedachv 10y ago
> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. I disagree. The large amount of mooches, bums, alcoholics, and freeloaders around clearly points out that the evolutionary hypothesis you posit is wrong. In general, any time you find yourself trying to justify something with evolutionary psychology, you are probably wrong. I really hate the abuse of the field and the trendy brainless use of "DNA-this" "in-our-DNA that" in popular jargon. Evolutionary psychology is just Social Darwinism for the 21st century with a new name. Unless there is a study that tested and confirmed an evolutionary psychology hypothesis, consider it wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psyc...
- module0000 10y ago
  Let's break it down to DNA then, and not "dna-this" or "dna-that" - which I agree is popular and usually incorrect. Can we agree that your DNA(and most species) does give you an innate drive to reproduce? Past(last 100000+ years) and present mating suitability in a male is perceived by his ability to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. The large amount of "mooches, bums, alcoholics" you reference would be poor mates, yet they continue to reproduce. They do so [mostly] with the assistance of another willing member of the class of "mooches, bums, alcoholics". However, the people that are not "mooches, bums, alcoholics" make more desirable mates, because they have a higher potential to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. That means that yes, your biology is still telling you that you need to work, even if it is only to achieve higher mating success, and fulfill your biological imperative. Hrm...I really don't like the direction my own thought is taking as I write this down. It ends with "well, then those (people) should be eliminated for the good of the species", and no one wants to hear that, whether it is correct or incorrect. It can be interpreted in a very dark and nasty context, and that is absolutely not what I'm trying to promote or champion. In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense - not in the "pursuit of happiness" sense, which is subjective and altogether distracting.

branchless 10y ago

I don't agree with this. The vast majority of govts around the world are facilitating inequality. In the last decade how many amazingly intelligent people who could have furthered the whole world have missed out? We'll never know, but I bet it's a lot. Most heads of govt are megalomaniacs. I agree we have a drive to improve but our current system is a long way from efficient by design.

kefka 10y ago

> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. Whereas most anthropological and genetic studies indicate that homo sapiens did not "win", but instead we mated with them and joined the disparate species. > Example... do you notice the drive among the powerful/wealthy individuals, governments, and corporations - to get to space and colonize our solar system and beyond? That drive does not exist if we sit on our laurels. Those are the people pushing the species forward - it would be simple to do nothing, and for them to sip very expensive coffee and entertain themselves until their life expired. Sigh. And here we go, with moralizing capitalistic thought with expansion and growth. You pack in the assumption that capitalism pushes society forward and will continue to do so. I also seem to remember the Wright bros story. They patented the aeropane in the US, whereas it was free to use elsewhere. They locked down the industry so it was their way or no way. Eventually, the US military had to step in, due to WWI, and end their protections. In the end, capitalism is great at looking that it furthers science and the arts. But the bad sides are that it: 1. retards cooperation between different entities 2. pits person against person 3. encourages to maximize money against all other means > tldr; if/when a society meltdown occurs, I don't want you on my team. Don't worry. You wouldn't be on my "team" anyways. It'd be your loss, given I know many things, including many arts and sciences from the SCA.

tigershark 10y ago
I don't really think that most studies indicate that. Any proof about your claim? As far as I remember there is possible evidence of some interbreeding, but it absolutely is not the cause of Neanderthal disappearance. As for the anti-capitalism rant please tell me that you have visited Russia, east Europe, Venezuela and the awesome places in the world where the capitalist evil has been destroyed for some time. And once you go there please feel free to stay if you enjoy it so much. I have seen some of those places and, thanks a lot, but I prefer the evil capitalism by far.

sedachv 10y ago

> I disagree. The drive to work and/or be productive is one of the reasons we're the apex predator, and not our prior evolutionary human-like variations. It's not "society" that says you have to work, but your DNA. I disagree. The large amount of mooches, bums, alcoholics, and freeloaders around clearly points out that the evolutionary hypothesis you posit is wrong. In general, any time you find yourself trying to justify something with evolutionary psychology, you are probably wrong. I really hate the abuse of the field and the trendy brainless use of "DNA-this" "in-our-DNA that" in popular jargon. Evolutionary psychology is just Social Darwinism for the 21st century with a new name. Unless there is a study that tested and confirmed an evolutionary psychology hypothesis, consider it wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psyc...

module0000 10y ago
Let's break it down to DNA then, and not "dna-this" or "dna-that" - which I agree is popular and usually incorrect. Can we agree that your DNA(and most species) does give you an innate drive to reproduce? Past(last 100000+ years) and present mating suitability in a male is perceived by his ability to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. The large amount of "mooches, bums, alcoholics" you reference would be poor mates, yet they continue to reproduce. They do so [mostly] with the assistance of another willing member of the class of "mooches, bums, alcoholics". However, the people that are not "mooches, bums, alcoholics" make more desirable mates, because they have a higher potential to feed/defend/nurture their mate and offspring. That means that yes, your biology is still telling you that you need to work, even if it is only to achieve higher mating success, and fulfill your biological imperative. Hrm...I really don't like the direction my own thought is taking as I write this down. It ends with "well, then those (people) should be eliminated for the good of the species", and no one wants to hear that, whether it is correct or incorrect. It can be interpreted in a very dark and nasty context, and that is absolutely not what I'm trying to promote or champion. In a nutshell, I'm arguing that I will win at the biological imperative because of my drive to work and succeed. Those people that don't want to work and succeed would contribute to their species by going off somewhere quiet, and avoiding consumption of the resources needed by their fellow species members that are grinding away at "life" in the evolutionary sense - not in the "pursuit of happiness" sense, which is subjective and altogether distracting.