5 ms·

I think there's a definitional mismatch problem in this debate. You're talking about meaningfulness at the individual level, and I completely agree, nobody sho

I think there's a definitional mismatch problem in this debate. You're talking about meaningfulness at the individual level, and I completely agree, nobody should be judged for how they find meaning and edification in their work, as long as they're not a hitman or something involving a similar level of individual amorality. But I also agree with gp and others that there is a difference between doing ad tech and rocket science. It's not that ad tech should be demonized, but I can't deny that there's something more meaningful about space exploration, and here I mean "potentially meaningful to much/all of humanity". And for some, this broader sense of meaningfulness overlaps significantly with their individual sense of meaningfulness, in which case they probably would have a hard time finding ad tech work meaningful.

manigandham 10y ago
> but I can't deny that there's something more meaningful about space exploration Exactly, that's you - but others are completely different. There is no absolute ranking. Individual meaningfulness is all that exists. You might be in a group of people that all believe the same but that's about the extent of it. I personally see space travel as just another step in the growth of technology. It's definitely exciting but not some grand journey towards meaning. It's just science and tech and progress. And there are billions more who couldn't care less for space. Many say we should cure cancer first before spending money on space because it's more "meaningful", yet it's clear that both are important pursuits to the people involved in them and that there is no right or better thing for an individual or society to do. So why is advertising somehow beneath that? Is allowing efficient commerce and communications to build the economy and wealth somehow not up to the same standards? This letter from 1970 by Dr. Stuhlinger of Nasa is an incredibly reply in defense of space vs feeding the hungry, switch out space travel with anything else and it still holds: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
- inimino 10y ago
  > There is no absolute ranking. Individual meaningfulness is all that exists. This is not even consistent. Even if you admit only individual meaning, then certainly there are aggregates of those values across society. And advertising is not as high as feeding the hungry or contributing to world peace, as obvious examples. Collecting stamps may be meaningful to you as an individual, but society also judges your contribution as more or less meaningful. Psychologically, your own experience of meaningfulness is influenced by the opinions of others. So you can see already that even if you disregard any questions of morality in how you spend your life, the idea that meaning is purely individual already breaks down and becomes inconsistent. We are social animals. That is a wonderful letter and an excellent example of how the cost of space exploration can be justified. Advertising, while wasting more human resources, does not need this kind of justification, because it is not usually funded by public institutions. However, if you were to try to write such a compelling letter to justify the vast human expenditure of energy and intelligence on advertising you would find it difficult. The letter makes specific examples of the benefits to all of us on Earth of how space flight requires technological progress, which improves our well-being, and how space exploration inspires us to better appreciate and protect our planet. You cannot replace space travel with advertising and make the same arguments. Whether space travel or curing cancer is more meaningful, it's certainly good that we are doing both. However, the same is not true for advertising. If you took 99% of the talented and capable people in advertising and put them to work on curing cancer, feeding the poor, providing health care or education, or any of a number of other areas, society would be better off. Some people derive meaning from making a good living and supporting their families. If advertising is the way to do that, great. But if you derive meaning from the value that your work provides to society (and to some extent, everyone who works does) then advertising (in the majority of cases) is not for you. If we could disarm all the world's armies overnight and prevent all wars, and spend those resources on something else, wouldn't be better off? We cannot, because the competitive structure of our world is such that unilateral or universal disarmament are both impossible to achieve. Military spending and war remain necessary because we have found no way to move beyond them. If we could create a world overnight with no advertising, we would be better off by all the productive areas that energy and creativity could be redirected to, but we can't because of the competitive structure of our economies. Advertising is made necessary by our current system, but that does not mean it is equally socially valuable or provides the same meaning to those who work in it as every other field. In making this comparison, I mean no disrespect to the military. You can agree that war is horrible but still serve from love of country. There is nobility in that. I don't think you can make the same claim for advertising.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    > Even if you admit only individual meaning, then certainly there are aggregates of those values across society. This is what I said. There is no absolute ranking. It's groups of people thinking the same thing, and very few things have a majority, but even if they do it doesn't matter since it's a belief. There is no "right" or "better" yet you keep saying advertising is worse somehow. Even space travel is far from the top if you actually look at the entire planet and that's what I was trying to show with that letter. > You cannot replace space travel with advertising and make the same arguments. Yes you can. Every industry makes progress that is felt everywhere else. That is the point. Advertising has moved the entire internet into the commercial age and allowed the absolutely vast amount of content today, not to mention the success of every major business that you rely on and work for. I don't see how you can discount that at all.
    - inimino 10y ago
      > There is no "right" or "better" yet you keep saying advertising is worse somehow. Yes. Advertising is worse. It is a net loss to society, necessary for structural reasons of competition between companies but otherwise nearly valueless in comparison to the human energy and time devoted to it, and with significant negative externalities for all of society. There are many industries that are better than advertising. This is why it isn't rated as one of most people's favorite feel-good industries, even though you claim to think that's irrelevant. Take the money out of the equation and ask yourself how many people would still be working in advertising if we lived in some sort of Star Trek world where people decided what to do based on their abilities and what is best for society. > Every industry makes progress that is felt everywhere else. That is the point. Advertising has moved the entire internet into the commercial age and allowed the absolutely vast amount of content today, not to mention the success of every major business that you rely on and work for. You're arguing in defense of advertising, but I think you've painted yourself into a corner here. Yes, in some butterfly effect way, every industry affects everything else, but the scale is not always the same, and not every effect is positive. What would have happened to the Internet without advertising? We would still have e-commerce because it is tremendously efficient, but we wouldn't have banner ads, or spam. We would still have content, because people like to create and share, but we wouldn't have fake news sites (the ones that were built by teenagers for the ad revenue) or Buzzfeed, Outbrain, and all of the rest of the shit content that exists only to game advertising. Would we have Google? Youtube? Facebook? Maybe with different business models. If you look at the actual impact of advertising on society, it's not easy to argue that it is one of the better industries. So I can understand why you took the approach of trying to say that all industries are really the same, and anyway it's all just beliefs which you say don't matter. But that argument doesn't hold up. I'm curious where you would draw the line beyond which people in an industry become responsible for what their industry does, or if you draw that line at all.

manigandham 10y ago

> but I can't deny that there's something more meaningful about space exploration Exactly, that's you - but others are completely different. There is no absolute ranking. Individual meaningfulness is all that exists. You might be in a group of people that all believe the same but that's about the extent of it. I personally see space travel as just another step in the growth of technology. It's definitely exciting but not some grand journey towards meaning. It's just science and tech and progress. And there are billions more who couldn't care less for space. Many say we should cure cancer first before spending money on space because it's more "meaningful", yet it's clear that both are important pursuits to the people involved in them and that there is no right or better thing for an individual or society to do. So why is advertising somehow beneath that? Is allowing efficient commerce and communications to build the economy and wealth somehow not up to the same standards? This letter from 1970 by Dr. Stuhlinger of Nasa is an incredibly reply in defense of space vs feeding the hungry, switch out space travel with anything else and it still holds: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

inimino 10y ago
> There is no absolute ranking. Individual meaningfulness is all that exists. This is not even consistent. Even if you admit only individual meaning, then certainly there are aggregates of those values across society. And advertising is not as high as feeding the hungry or contributing to world peace, as obvious examples. Collecting stamps may be meaningful to you as an individual, but society also judges your contribution as more or less meaningful. Psychologically, your own experience of meaningfulness is influenced by the opinions of others. So you can see already that even if you disregard any questions of morality in how you spend your life, the idea that meaning is purely individual already breaks down and becomes inconsistent. We are social animals. That is a wonderful letter and an excellent example of how the cost of space exploration can be justified. Advertising, while wasting more human resources, does not need this kind of justification, because it is not usually funded by public institutions. However, if you were to try to write such a compelling letter to justify the vast human expenditure of energy and intelligence on advertising you would find it difficult. The letter makes specific examples of the benefits to all of us on Earth of how space flight requires technological progress, which improves our well-being, and how space exploration inspires us to better appreciate and protect our planet. You cannot replace space travel with advertising and make the same arguments. Whether space travel or curing cancer is more meaningful, it's certainly good that we are doing both. However, the same is not true for advertising. If you took 99% of the talented and capable people in advertising and put them to work on curing cancer, feeding the poor, providing health care or education, or any of a number of other areas, society would be better off. Some people derive meaning from making a good living and supporting their families. If advertising is the way to do that, great. But if you derive meaning from the value that your work provides to society (and to some extent, everyone who works does) then advertising (in the majority of cases) is not for you. If we could disarm all the world's armies overnight and prevent all wars, and spend those resources on something else, wouldn't be better off? We cannot, because the competitive structure of our world is such that unilateral or universal disarmament are both impossible to achieve. Military spending and war remain necessary because we have found no way to move beyond them. If we could create a world overnight with no advertising, we would be better off by all the productive areas that energy and creativity could be redirected to, but we can't because of the competitive structure of our economies. Advertising is made necessary by our current system, but that does not mean it is equally socially valuable or provides the same meaning to those who work in it as every other field. In making this comparison, I mean no disrespect to the military. You can agree that war is horrible but still serve from love of country. There is nobility in that. I don't think you can make the same claim for advertising.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > Even if you admit only individual meaning, then certainly there are aggregates of those values across society. This is what I said. There is no absolute ranking. It's groups of people thinking the same thing, and very few things have a majority, but even if they do it doesn't matter since it's a belief. There is no "right" or "better" yet you keep saying advertising is worse somehow. Even space travel is far from the top if you actually look at the entire planet and that's what I was trying to show with that letter. > You cannot replace space travel with advertising and make the same arguments. Yes you can. Every industry makes progress that is felt everywhere else. That is the point. Advertising has moved the entire internet into the commercial age and allowed the absolutely vast amount of content today, not to mention the success of every major business that you rely on and work for. I don't see how you can discount that at all.
  - inimino 10y ago
    > There is no "right" or "better" yet you keep saying advertising is worse somehow. Yes. Advertising is worse. It is a net loss to society, necessary for structural reasons of competition between companies but otherwise nearly valueless in comparison to the human energy and time devoted to it, and with significant negative externalities for all of society. There are many industries that are better than advertising. This is why it isn't rated as one of most people's favorite feel-good industries, even though you claim to think that's irrelevant. Take the money out of the equation and ask yourself how many people would still be working in advertising if we lived in some sort of Star Trek world where people decided what to do based on their abilities and what is best for society. > Every industry makes progress that is felt everywhere else. That is the point. Advertising has moved the entire internet into the commercial age and allowed the absolutely vast amount of content today, not to mention the success of every major business that you rely on and work for. You're arguing in defense of advertising, but I think you've painted yourself into a corner here. Yes, in some butterfly effect way, every industry affects everything else, but the scale is not always the same, and not every effect is positive. What would have happened to the Internet without advertising? We would still have e-commerce because it is tremendously efficient, but we wouldn't have banner ads, or spam. We would still have content, because people like to create and share, but we wouldn't have fake news sites (the ones that were built by teenagers for the ad revenue) or Buzzfeed, Outbrain, and all of the rest of the shit content that exists only to game advertising. Would we have Google? Youtube? Facebook? Maybe with different business models. If you look at the actual impact of advertising on society, it's not easy to argue that it is one of the better industries. So I can understand why you took the approach of trying to say that all industries are really the same, and anyway it's all just beliefs which you say don't matter. But that argument doesn't hold up. I'm curious where you would draw the line beyond which people in an industry become responsible for what their industry does, or if you draw that line at all.