3 ms·

> there will always be people who choose trivial entertainment, and there will always be folks who chase knowledge and self improvement That's why the entire t

> there will always be people who choose trivial entertainment, and there will always be folks who chase knowledge and self improvement That's why the entire thing seems like a non-issue to me. If some people don't want to do anything useful with their lives, then who are we to prohibit them from continuing to do-nothing and thereby starving themselves? (Of course, we already, rightfully, prohibit people from harming&stealing-from each other; that's beside my point.)

chasd00 9y ago
I wouldn't have an issue except those who choose to waste their lives still get to take from those around them and society in general. If people who make no meaningful contribution to society have no entitlement to any benefit of society then i wouldn't care.
- mmirate 9y ago
  Indeed, the scenario you describe would be optimal. Meanwhile, however, trying to make the current society function better under the ubiquitous-welfare thesis is a step in the wrong direction. Better to, instead, make the act of discarding ubiquitous-welfare a more and more serious+obvious+viable solution to more and more of society's problems.
Wissmania 9y ago
I think this is just way too simplistic of a view of it. People won't just follow two exact patterns of behavior regardless of their environment. We all have, to varying extents, a proclivity to instant dopamine-based gratification. The difference now is that the technology that now exists makes this sort of gratification both constantly available, and better than ever at scratching that dopamine itch. The evidence the article presents also points towards something happening after the advent of smartphones, and not before.
- mmirate 9y ago
  > I think this is just way too simplistic of a view of it. People won't just follow two exact patterns of behavior regardless of their environment. We all have, to varying extents, a proclivity to instant dopamine-based gratification. Perhaps in the same way as an LED dimmed via pulse-width modulation has, to a varying extent, a proclivity to not produce light? Then just as the human perception of such an LED is on a continuum between "off" and "full brightness", so people's net-worths-at-retirement will stand on a continuum between starvation and Bill Gates.

chasd00 9y ago

I wouldn't have an issue except those who choose to waste their lives still get to take from those around them and society in general. If people who make no meaningful contribution to society have no entitlement to any benefit of society then i wouldn't care.

mmirate 9y ago
Indeed, the scenario you describe would be optimal. Meanwhile, however, trying to make the current society function better under the ubiquitous-welfare thesis is a step in the wrong direction. Better to, instead, make the act of discarding ubiquitous-welfare a more and more serious+obvious+viable solution to more and more of society's problems.

Wissmania 9y ago

I think this is just way too simplistic of a view of it. People won't just follow two exact patterns of behavior regardless of their environment. We all have, to varying extents, a proclivity to instant dopamine-based gratification. The difference now is that the technology that now exists makes this sort of gratification both constantly available, and better than ever at scratching that dopamine itch. The evidence the article presents also points towards something happening after the advent of smartphones, and not before.

mmirate 9y ago
> I think this is just way too simplistic of a view of it. People won't just follow two exact patterns of behavior regardless of their environment. We all have, to varying extents, a proclivity to instant dopamine-based gratification. Perhaps in the same way as an LED dimmed via pulse-width modulation has, to a varying extent, a proclivity to not produce light? Then just as the human perception of such an LED is on a continuum between "off" and "full brightness", so people's net-worths-at-retirement will stand on a continuum between starvation and Bill Gates.