6 ms·

This article seems like a really long-winded way of stating "people need to take control of their lives more". It's alluded to in the article but not really ex

This article seems like a really long-winded way of stating "people need to take control of their lives more". It's alluded to in the article but not really explored well enough - basically the idea that you don't need to be always busy, you need to pick your battles, recognise when you're in a rut, and get out of it. Looking at generalities like "the average X does X" is just not interesting. It's not a goal to aim for. The average person has never had a good life, and probably never will unless we have a massive reduction in population or something.

thinkingkong 8y ago
The average person has never had a good life, compared to the right hand side of the average, not would they with less or more people. But it doesn't mean the overall standard of living for the 'average' cannot go up.
- rzzzt 8y ago
  What about the median person?
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Far wose than average (mean).
s4vi0r 8y ago
The average person doesn't have the ability to do that because the average person doesn't really have agency. >the average person has never had a good life, and probably never will Because our society doesn't care about people, only capital. There's nothing wrong with the average person, its that the average person is born into an environment where everything is working against them. And I think it's pretty clear that as we reach unprecedented levels of income inequality - especially with climate change being a thing - that the inherent contradictions of the system are becoming more and more obvious. The yellow vest protests are a clear example of this. If we're lucky it'll end well, but whether or not the ruling class will take control of the situation and steer us towards fascism remains to be seen.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I agree, to an extent. But it's not "our society". It's physics. A person (singular) can grab as much as they can (and wish to) hold. An individual in good health in a country like the USA has a hell of a lot of agency. But the people (plural) cannot. The economy relies on it, sure, but so too does the health of the environment, the physical amount of space available, energy limitations, and the hierarchical nature of status. What works against them is the fact that we simply cannot have 300 million wealthy folk in big houses with cars (in the US) as a physical impossibility. Add on to that the societal aspect of the fact no-one is the binman/waiter/whatever in this scenario and it becomes even more obviously nonsense, yes, but it's not the largest problem by a long shot. Oh, and then there's the other 6.5+ billion. If you wish to work in charitable endeavours; there is nothing wrong with that, at all. Admirable, in fact. But it must be recognised; and I don't think a lot of article writers, or indeed people in general, realise that this is what they are doing when they obsess over 'averages'. They are tying their success to that of society as a whole, which does indeed reduce their agency; because they are powerless to affect society as a whole in more than a trivial sense unless they rise to a position of great power. Support those around you. Be a good citizen. But focus on yourself first.
  - CptFribble 8y ago
    With respect, I disagree on both points: 1) "it's physics" - Texas alone receives more solar energy than our daily planet-wide power consumption, like hundreds of times more. Given a plant-based building material, basic needs for all humans, including "large" homes, could be reduced to just an energy supply problem. There's enough resources for all people be live well, if we would work together to use them effectively. 2) "focus on yourself first" - I believe this is what got us into this mess of global inequality (not just USA, consider difference between average American and average African) and global warming. We need not to focus on ourselves, but work together to elect leaders that will align economic incentives with the good of all humans, not just the owners of capital. The problem is, the entire system we have is pretty much the opposite of this right now. I get that what I'm saying amounts to little more than saying "let's have a wand and pray," but I believe there is a path out of the next 100 years that leaves us all better off than where we are now. I just haven't figured out exactly what that path is yet.
freedomben 8y ago
> The average person has never had a good life, and probably never will unless we have a massive reduction in population or something. Given that the regard of ones life as "good" is a highly subjective and personalized appraisal, this seems like it's heavily in the realm of unprovable yet interesting philosophy. I tend to believe that the average person can have a good life if they can find something that gives them meaning. It can be as simple as yoga and stoicism, or really anything. I do find it interesting tho to look at how much better even the lower classes have it now than 50, or 100, or more years ago. Even simple things like indoor plumbing (it sure is nice to not have to go outside in sub-zero temperatures and snow to take a schnitz), heating and cooling systems, and electricity are amazing, and virtually everyone has them. Then we look at truly modern things like smart phones, which are also becoming ubiquitous. Royalty of a few centuries ago could have never dreamed of such a rich life. So, while I don't think "good life" and modern conveniences are anywhere near synonymous, I do think it's clear that the "average" person's life is getting much better (tho rising inequality is a problem, but that's incidental to this IMHO).
- esotericn 8y ago
  Sure. Yours and comments below seem to be talking about another topic though - the comments here have gone off on a tangent. The article is about an individual's struggles; but they constantly make comparison to "millenials" as a group.

thinkingkong 8y ago

The average person has never had a good life, compared to the right hand side of the average, not would they with less or more people. But it doesn't mean the overall standard of living for the 'average' cannot go up.

rzzzt 8y ago
What about the median person?
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Far wose than average (mean).

s4vi0r 8y ago

The average person doesn't have the ability to do that because the average person doesn't really have agency. >the average person has never had a good life, and probably never will Because our society doesn't care about people, only capital. There's nothing wrong with the average person, its that the average person is born into an environment where everything is working against them. And I think it's pretty clear that as we reach unprecedented levels of income inequality - especially with climate change being a thing - that the inherent contradictions of the system are becoming more and more obvious. The yellow vest protests are a clear example of this. If we're lucky it'll end well, but whether or not the ruling class will take control of the situation and steer us towards fascism remains to be seen.

esotericn 8y ago
I agree, to an extent. But it's not "our society". It's physics. A person (singular) can grab as much as they can (and wish to) hold. An individual in good health in a country like the USA has a hell of a lot of agency. But the people (plural) cannot. The economy relies on it, sure, but so too does the health of the environment, the physical amount of space available, energy limitations, and the hierarchical nature of status. What works against them is the fact that we simply cannot have 300 million wealthy folk in big houses with cars (in the US) as a physical impossibility. Add on to that the societal aspect of the fact no-one is the binman/waiter/whatever in this scenario and it becomes even more obviously nonsense, yes, but it's not the largest problem by a long shot. Oh, and then there's the other 6.5+ billion. If you wish to work in charitable endeavours; there is nothing wrong with that, at all. Admirable, in fact. But it must be recognised; and I don't think a lot of article writers, or indeed people in general, realise that this is what they are doing when they obsess over 'averages'. They are tying their success to that of society as a whole, which does indeed reduce their agency; because they are powerless to affect society as a whole in more than a trivial sense unless they rise to a position of great power. Support those around you. Be a good citizen. But focus on yourself first.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  With respect, I disagree on both points: 1) "it's physics" - Texas alone receives more solar energy than our daily planet-wide power consumption, like hundreds of times more. Given a plant-based building material, basic needs for all humans, including "large" homes, could be reduced to just an energy supply problem. There's enough resources for all people be live well, if we would work together to use them effectively. 2) "focus on yourself first" - I believe this is what got us into this mess of global inequality (not just USA, consider difference between average American and average African) and global warming. We need not to focus on ourselves, but work together to elect leaders that will align economic incentives with the good of all humans, not just the owners of capital. The problem is, the entire system we have is pretty much the opposite of this right now. I get that what I'm saying amounts to little more than saying "let's have a wand and pray," but I believe there is a path out of the next 100 years that leaves us all better off than where we are now. I just haven't figured out exactly what that path is yet.

freedomben 8y ago

> The average person has never had a good life, and probably never will unless we have a massive reduction in population or something. Given that the regard of ones life as "good" is a highly subjective and personalized appraisal, this seems like it's heavily in the realm of unprovable yet interesting philosophy. I tend to believe that the average person can have a good life if they can find something that gives them meaning. It can be as simple as yoga and stoicism, or really anything. I do find it interesting tho to look at how much better even the lower classes have it now than 50, or 100, or more years ago. Even simple things like indoor plumbing (it sure is nice to not have to go outside in sub-zero temperatures and snow to take a schnitz), heating and cooling systems, and electricity are amazing, and virtually everyone has them. Then we look at truly modern things like smart phones, which are also becoming ubiquitous. Royalty of a few centuries ago could have never dreamed of such a rich life. So, while I don't think "good life" and modern conveniences are anywhere near synonymous, I do think it's clear that the "average" person's life is getting much better (tho rising inequality is a problem, but that's incidental to this IMHO).

esotericn 8y ago
Sure. Yours and comments below seem to be talking about another topic though - the comments here have gone off on a tangent. The article is about an individual's struggles; but they constantly make comparison to "millenials" as a group.