4 ms·

>(one tractor working in a big field is a lot more economical than 1200 humans working in 1200 gardens). Sure. But 1200 humans working in 1200 gardens is also

>(one tractor working in a big field is a lot more economical than 1200 humans working in 1200 gardens). Sure. But 1200 humans working in 1200 gardens is also a lot more economical than 1200 humans sitting at home playing Fortnite all day because there are no jobs. The idea of employment guarantees as welfare policy has been getting traction, and programs like this where raw output isn't the main goal would be good candidates.

weberc2 8y ago
Sorry, I’m not following. Why the gardens v fortnite dichotomy? How did you get there?
- naravara 8y ago
  Basically efficiency isn't the chief concern. If you really have a bunch of people with nothing better to do with their time (e.g. Fortnite), then we don't really need to care about allocating labor as efficiently as possible to maximize yield. We can use labor in a very inefficient (where yield is concerned) way if we think it will confer ecological, aesthetic, or sociological side-benefits, as would having lots of private gardens. Fortnite is just an example of something people fall into doing when they don't have any other productive opportunities available to them.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    I'm not sure whether you're taking issue with leisure time generally or the tendency for people to participate in leisure that you believe is inefficient, but both are orthogonal to the question of which type of agricultural system is more efficient. In particular, if your solution is simply "spend less time on [your current] leisure activities!", it can be applied to either aggricultural system. In the case of specialized agriculture, it simply means spending more time on the individual's specialization or really anything with a greater opportunity value than growing one's own food (if your goal is to maximize earnings, it's tough to do worse than spending an hour per day growing your own food to save ~$5).
    - naravara 8y ago
      I'm not talking about leisure time. I'm talking about structural unemployment.
stale2002 8y ago
> is also a lot more economical than 1200 humans sitting at home playing Fortnite all day because there are no jobs No it is not. I personally care about people being able to do what they want with their free time. The situation you describe is only "efficient" if you value everyone's free time and happiness at 0. I care about people's happiness, on the other hand. The main goal of society should be to provide people with things that they want, and that includes leisure time.
- visarga 8y ago
  On the contrary, I think it would be a great benefit to people if they could be more self reliant / not as dependent on state and corporations to survive. I prefer self reliance to more leisure time.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    You might prefer that. But other people don't. If they did care about that, then they wouldnt be using that leisure time, they would be becoming more self reliant. I personally want people to have a choice of what to do with their time, and not have values forced on them.
- naravara 8y ago
  >No it is not. I personally care about people being able to do what they want with their free time. Just tranq them all with a guaranteed supply of opiates then. Problem solved. People's needs and wants are socially conditioned. It's not like their "wants" just sprang out of thin air. They were created by the culture and social expectations around them. And many of those social expectations make people feel obligated to feel useful. That means they need to be provided with avenues where they can feel useful instead of doping themselves with addictions to fill the sense of purposeless anomie that they fall into when alienated from public life. Make work programs, like urban forestry or gardening, are good ways to do this as they beautify the spaces where we live and are unlikely to be done adequately without some societal coordination.

weberc2 8y ago

Sorry, I’m not following. Why the gardens v fortnite dichotomy? How did you get there?

naravara 8y ago
Basically efficiency isn't the chief concern. If you really have a bunch of people with nothing better to do with their time (e.g. Fortnite), then we don't really need to care about allocating labor as efficiently as possible to maximize yield. We can use labor in a very inefficient (where yield is concerned) way if we think it will confer ecological, aesthetic, or sociological side-benefits, as would having lots of private gardens. Fortnite is just an example of something people fall into doing when they don't have any other productive opportunities available to them.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I'm not sure whether you're taking issue with leisure time generally or the tendency for people to participate in leisure that you believe is inefficient, but both are orthogonal to the question of which type of agricultural system is more efficient. In particular, if your solution is simply "spend less time on [your current] leisure activities!", it can be applied to either aggricultural system. In the case of specialized agriculture, it simply means spending more time on the individual's specialization or really anything with a greater opportunity value than growing one's own food (if your goal is to maximize earnings, it's tough to do worse than spending an hour per day growing your own food to save ~$5).
  - naravara 8y ago
    I'm not talking about leisure time. I'm talking about structural unemployment.

stale2002 8y ago

> is also a lot more economical than 1200 humans sitting at home playing Fortnite all day because there are no jobs No it is not. I personally care about people being able to do what they want with their free time. The situation you describe is only "efficient" if you value everyone's free time and happiness at 0. I care about people's happiness, on the other hand. The main goal of society should be to provide people with things that they want, and that includes leisure time.

visarga 8y ago
On the contrary, I think it would be a great benefit to people if they could be more self reliant / not as dependent on state and corporations to survive. I prefer self reliance to more leisure time.
- stale2002 8y ago
  You might prefer that. But other people don't. If they did care about that, then they wouldnt be using that leisure time, they would be becoming more self reliant. I personally want people to have a choice of what to do with their time, and not have values forced on them.
naravara 8y ago
>No it is not. I personally care about people being able to do what they want with their free time. Just tranq them all with a guaranteed supply of opiates then. Problem solved. People's needs and wants are socially conditioned. It's not like their "wants" just sprang out of thin air. They were created by the culture and social expectations around them. And many of those social expectations make people feel obligated to feel useful. That means they need to be provided with avenues where they can feel useful instead of doping themselves with addictions to fill the sense of purposeless anomie that they fall into when alienated from public life. Make work programs, like urban forestry or gardening, are good ways to do this as they beautify the spaces where we live and are unlikely to be done adequately without some societal coordination.