5 ms·

Worth reminding folks of the unspoken assumption that work is good. We need other avenues of community involvement. Some of the values younger people are turni

by jchrisa 10y ago

Worth reminding folks of the unspoken assumption that work is good. We need other avenues of community involvement. Some of the values younger people are turning to today are hopeful. http://www.generation-online.org/p/fp_bifo5.htm http://www.generation-online.org/p/fp_bifo5.htm

jpt4 10y ago
It strikes me as counterproductive for the Post-Futurist cause to immediately beneath its statement of values reproduce for comparison the infinitely aesthetically superior Futurist Manifesto: "1. We want to sing of the danger of love, the daily creation of a sweet energy that is never dispersed. 2. The essential elements of our poetry will be irony, tenderness and rebellion." vs. "1. We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness. 2. Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry." By any measure of thumos [0], they are incomparable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumos
- stephancoral 10y ago
  It's almost as if aesthetics are secondary to the ideology and viewpoints being described. You realize most of the Futurists were avowed Fasicsts yes?
  - jpt4 10y ago
    The aesthetics of rhetoric is crucial to the ability (and, being an articulation of values instead of a specific programme of behavior, validity) of a manifesto to generate an animating, co-ordinating spirit. If your creedal banner is not kalos, its kagathos is suspect.
DenisM 10y ago
Thank you for bringing it up. Along the same lines I highly recommend the seminal work by Bertrand Russel, it dissects the "work is good" mentality in great detail (1932). http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
- pm90 10y ago
  Wow. Incredible read. Its pretty amazing that Betrand Russel recognized the role of leisure back in his time, when productivity was still not as high as it is today. I imagine that is why he argues for a 4 hour workday, instead of the more radical UBI.
  - openfuture 10y ago
    Seems like he wasn't the only one, look how the word leisure was used before: school (n.1) Look up school at Dictionary.com "place of instruction," Old English scol, from Latin schola "intermission of work, leisure for learning; learned conversation, debate; lecture; meeting place for teachers and students, place of instruction; disciples of a teacher, body of followers, sect," from Greek skhole "spare time, leisure, rest ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school
cortesoft 10y ago
I think that 'work' is good, we just need to shift our concept of what work is. I think of 'work' as being any activity that advances society; this could be art, science, culture, or fulfillment of day to day needs (producing food, clothing, etc). All of those 'avenues of community involvement' are work by this definition. The only problem is if we only define work as something someone is willing to trade their own resources for.... some things are valuable, but don't fit into the realm of something people would pay for (for lots of reasons, in particular if they are public goods that are non exclusionary) Our current system of markets determining what work is only is applicable for a subset of the things that are valuable to humanity; we use it because it is the best proxy we have at the moment. We need a better proxy in the future.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pygy_ 10y ago
Work is economic power. Being completely economically dependent sucks, badly.
Nydhal 10y ago
I know this might be an unpopular opinion here, but there are so many unspoken assumptions and generalizations in a lot of these discussions. As someone from a developing country who has witnessed the rise of extremism and civil unrest there are some beliefs that many times go unquestioned which are not necessarily true: - Men and women can and should fulfill the same roles in society, a perfect society is one where we have a 50/50 ratio in everything. - There is nothing we can do about culture/religion, if anything, it is an insignificant factor. - Economic models work the same everywhere. - As long as things are relatively stable, they will remain stable, provided we make small incremental improvements. - Politics still has the same power to change society as it did in the past, and politicians know what they are doing. - We understand the effects of technology. just my 50 ¢.
- m_fayer 10y ago
  There's a lot of wisdom in your list, but I would take issue with the men/women point, that one is a bit of a straw man. No one reasonable is advocating for a mandated perfect 50/50 split. The reasonable take on gender equality is to remove the social obstacles that prevent sufficiently motivated women from climbing to the top of the corporate ladder, or sufficiently motivated men from committing themselves to nurturing their families, as one example. Gender equality is simply the expansion of choice via elimination of constraints generated by too-rigid gender identities.
  - speeder 10y ago
    I am from Brazil... Let me see. Laws requiring 30% of election candidates be women? check. University quotas? Check. Arguments about "not enough women in <insert random profession here>" because it is not 50% split? Check. I guess your "No one reasonable is advocating for a mandated perfect 50/50 split." phrase is true, specially the reasonable part, it seems most politicians are unreasonable.
    - m_fayer 10y ago
      The quotas are not motivated by a desire to force a perfect split. Rather, they're attempting to correct a current imbalance create by past and present sexism. I agree that it's a blunt and sloppy instrument. Of course it would be better to attack the root cause and eliminate sexism, and then any imbalances would be perfectly acceptable. If only we could figure out how.
m_fayer 10y ago
While I don't accept work or labor as intrinsically good or necessary, IMO occupation is. Feeling needed and useful is central to having a sense of purpose, and without that, you get solipsism, anomie, and eventually social unrest. In other words I agree, I just worry that the people correctly advocating for a cultural devaluation of "work" as an intrinsic good, and possibly for UBI, may also be overlooking people's need for occupation. While it's not an immediate concern, we should still be careful not to advocate for a system which makes meaningful occupation a purely opt-in option that requires significant self-motivated effort. Not everyone will think to opt in or be motivated enough to follow through, and while those people will not suffer from material deprivation they will still suffer, and destabilise and delegitimise the system we're working to achieve.

by jchrisa 10y ago

jpt4 10y ago

It strikes me as counterproductive for the Post-Futurist cause to immediately beneath its statement of values reproduce for comparison the infinitely aesthetically superior Futurist Manifesto: "1. We want to sing of the danger of love, the daily creation of a sweet energy that is never dispersed. 2. The essential elements of our poetry will be irony, tenderness and rebellion." vs. "1. We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness. 2. Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry." By any measure of thumos [0], they are incomparable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumos

stephancoral 10y ago
It's almost as if aesthetics are secondary to the ideology and viewpoints being described. You realize most of the Futurists were avowed Fasicsts yes?
- jpt4 10y ago
  The aesthetics of rhetoric is crucial to the ability (and, being an articulation of values instead of a specific programme of behavior, validity) of a manifesto to generate an animating, co-ordinating spirit. If your creedal banner is not kalos, its kagathos is suspect.

DenisM 10y ago

Thank you for bringing it up. Along the same lines I highly recommend the seminal work by Bertrand Russel, it dissects the "work is good" mentality in great detail (1932). http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

pm90 10y ago
Wow. Incredible read. Its pretty amazing that Betrand Russel recognized the role of leisure back in his time, when productivity was still not as high as it is today. I imagine that is why he argues for a 4 hour workday, instead of the more radical UBI.
- openfuture 10y ago
  Seems like he wasn't the only one, look how the word leisure was used before: school (n.1) Look up school at Dictionary.com "place of instruction," Old English scol, from Latin schola "intermission of work, leisure for learning; learned conversation, debate; lecture; meeting place for teachers and students, place of instruction; disciples of a teacher, body of followers, sect," from Greek skhole "spare time, leisure, rest ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school

cortesoft 10y ago

I think that 'work' is good, we just need to shift our concept of what work is. I think of 'work' as being any activity that advances society; this could be art, science, culture, or fulfillment of day to day needs (producing food, clothing, etc). All of those 'avenues of community involvement' are work by this definition. The only problem is if we only define work as something someone is willing to trade their own resources for.... some things are valuable, but don't fit into the realm of something people would pay for (for lots of reasons, in particular if they are public goods that are non exclusionary) Our current system of markets determining what work is only is applicable for a subset of the things that are valuable to humanity; we use it because it is the best proxy we have at the moment. We need a better proxy in the future.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pygy_ 10y ago

Work is economic power. Being completely economically dependent sucks, badly.

Nydhal 10y ago

I know this might be an unpopular opinion here, but there are so many unspoken assumptions and generalizations in a lot of these discussions. As someone from a developing country who has witnessed the rise of extremism and civil unrest there are some beliefs that many times go unquestioned which are not necessarily true: - Men and women can and should fulfill the same roles in society, a perfect society is one where we have a 50/50 ratio in everything. - There is nothing we can do about culture/religion, if anything, it is an insignificant factor. - Economic models work the same everywhere. - As long as things are relatively stable, they will remain stable, provided we make small incremental improvements. - Politics still has the same power to change society as it did in the past, and politicians know what they are doing. - We understand the effects of technology. just my 50 ¢.

m_fayer 10y ago
There's a lot of wisdom in your list, but I would take issue with the men/women point, that one is a bit of a straw man. No one reasonable is advocating for a mandated perfect 50/50 split. The reasonable take on gender equality is to remove the social obstacles that prevent sufficiently motivated women from climbing to the top of the corporate ladder, or sufficiently motivated men from committing themselves to nurturing their families, as one example. Gender equality is simply the expansion of choice via elimination of constraints generated by too-rigid gender identities.
- speeder 10y ago
  I am from Brazil... Let me see. Laws requiring 30% of election candidates be women? check. University quotas? Check. Arguments about "not enough women in <insert random profession here>" because it is not 50% split? Check. I guess your "No one reasonable is advocating for a mandated perfect 50/50 split." phrase is true, specially the reasonable part, it seems most politicians are unreasonable.
  - m_fayer 10y ago
    The quotas are not motivated by a desire to force a perfect split. Rather, they're attempting to correct a current imbalance create by past and present sexism. I agree that it's a blunt and sloppy instrument. Of course it would be better to attack the root cause and eliminate sexism, and then any imbalances would be perfectly acceptable. If only we could figure out how.

m_fayer 10y ago

While I don't accept work or labor as intrinsically good or necessary, IMO occupation is. Feeling needed and useful is central to having a sense of purpose, and without that, you get solipsism, anomie, and eventually social unrest. In other words I agree, I just worry that the people correctly advocating for a cultural devaluation of "work" as an intrinsic good, and possibly for UBI, may also be overlooking people's need for occupation. While it's not an immediate concern, we should still be careful not to advocate for a system which makes meaningful occupation a purely opt-in option that requires significant self-motivated effort. Not everyone will think to opt in or be motivated enough to follow through, and while those people will not suffer from material deprivation they will still suffer, and destabilise and delegitimise the system we're working to achieve.