3 ms·

Only with hindsight can you say that. Up until the day the discovery was made they’ve contributed nothing of use to the suffering. Some go their whole careers c

Only with hindsight can you say that. Up until the day the discovery was made they’ve contributed nothing of use to the suffering. Some go their whole careers chasing dead ends and never discover anything. Besides the article explicitly includes academia as a made up job.

EliRivers 8y ago
I disagree. Firstly, I disagree with the specifics of your counter; I disagree that industrialising antibiotic production is some kind of academic exercise. That's just a specific, though; I'm inferring that's what you're saying, from your comment on academia. Maybe that's not what you're saying? My larger disagreement; I think the article isn't about the individuals. It's about the work. The article asks "if you stopped doing your work, and nobody replaced you, how much suffering would that cause?" If nobody industrialised antibiotic production, the additional suffering is huge. It's not about deciding that one person went down a research dead-end and therefore that job is a made-up job. I don't need hindsight to identify that industrialising antibiotic production is a less made-up job than renaming PwC "Monday".
- slededit 8y ago
  Your rebuttal is a much stronger argument than what was in the linked article. Unfortunately I could only reply to what was written there. Of course I’ve seen poor branding bring down companies so I don’t consider it a made up job. Certainly if the company goes under due to lack of customers all the employees will suffer.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    Will their suffering be balanced out by the reduction in suffering their competitors experience? Should we value jobs that simply move suffering around?
    - slededit 8y ago
      And if the remaining competitor becomes a monopoly and price gauges the entire market? Would not suffering increase in absolute terms? In a highly interconnected world it’s not sufficient to show a job doesn’t produce direct value to prove it is pointless.

EliRivers 8y ago

I disagree. Firstly, I disagree with the specifics of your counter; I disagree that industrialising antibiotic production is some kind of academic exercise. That's just a specific, though; I'm inferring that's what you're saying, from your comment on academia. Maybe that's not what you're saying? My larger disagreement; I think the article isn't about the individuals. It's about the work. The article asks "if you stopped doing your work, and nobody replaced you, how much suffering would that cause?" If nobody industrialised antibiotic production, the additional suffering is huge. It's not about deciding that one person went down a research dead-end and therefore that job is a made-up job. I don't need hindsight to identify that industrialising antibiotic production is a less made-up job than renaming PwC "Monday".

slededit 8y ago
Your rebuttal is a much stronger argument than what was in the linked article. Unfortunately I could only reply to what was written there. Of course I’ve seen poor branding bring down companies so I don’t consider it a made up job. Certainly if the company goes under due to lack of customers all the employees will suffer.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  Will their suffering be balanced out by the reduction in suffering their competitors experience? Should we value jobs that simply move suffering around?
  - slededit 8y ago
    And if the remaining competitor becomes a monopoly and price gauges the entire market? Would not suffering increase in absolute terms? In a highly interconnected world it’s not sufficient to show a job doesn’t produce direct value to prove it is pointless.