8 ms·

There is also a meta to this. He is telling people in the past that their children will not have to work as long/hard. In doing this he gives people a dream to

There is also a meta to this. He is telling people in the past that their children will not have to work as long/hard. In doing this he gives people a dream to think about while they slog away in their own work. It is an escapism fantasy. I've worked at places where they lay people off, half of the group and the other half has to pick up the pieces. a few months later when it gets really bad and people are burning out, a Senior VP comes in to "listen" to people and put up a front that the company cares and tries to sell the employees on the idea that it will get better and that the company only want to keep people occupied 73% of the time. Their numbers I don't know how they came up with that 73%, but people ate it up and still got burned out, all the while talking about how things will get better and somehow that 73% will happen. It never did.

hitekker 8y ago
I believe Yuval Harari in Sapiens once said all social movements start by saying "the world, as it is, is unnatural. At some point, we were moving in the right direction but then we took a detour. We need to get back on track for the world to be natural again." You are correct that the sentiment of "things will get better, as long as we follow the way" is an empty appeal to the future. But "things use to be better, we've lost our way", that the systems around is are unnatural and therefore wrong, is a powerful drive for a complacent society. A catalyst for social change. As the oft-repeated 1984 quote goes, "Control the present, control the past. Control the past, control the future."
- roymurdock 8y ago
  natural has a completely different definition for different groups of people. was it “natural” for european settlers in America to have slaves up until the 18th century? was it “natural” for native Americans to live communally and without the ideas of property rights and ownership brought over by the Europeans? natural is such a vague and loaded term that its nearly meaningless when applied to “us” as human beings the real key is labor productivity. unless we invent new machines that make us more productive, and re jump start the demand for skilled human labor as we saw during the various industrialization periods of the last 120 years, then we will continue down a path where humans are less and less valued as their skills atrophy and they can be replaced by automated systems or more often cheaper labor doing a decent job at a much lower rate
  - spynxic 8y ago
    natural (comparative more natural, superlative most natural) 1. That exists and evolved within the confines of an ecosystem. 2. Of or relating to nature. 3. Without artificial additives. 4. As expected; reasonable. ------ mechanical (comparative more mechanical, superlative most mechanical) 1. (now rare) Characteristic of someone who does manual labour for a living; coarse, vulgar. 2. Related to mechanics (the branch of physics that deals with forces acting on mass). 3. Related to mechanics (the design and construction of machines) 4. Done by machine. (These definitions were sourced from Wiktionary) I hope these senses of the terms natural and mechanical help with drawing a clear distinction between what is authentically natural and what is not. If you seek further context about the distinction then search out for senses of the terms nature and artificial. Also, in response to the high regard for labor productivity, remember that efficiency can be a force for both creation and destruction.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    > then we will continue down a path where humans are less and less valued as their skills atrophy and they can be replaced by automated systems Have we started down this path? Are human less valued than they were 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Based on what? What I see is that there is plenty more work we’re not even trying to do, because we’re busy with the work we’re doing. Just in climate change-mitigating forestry and mental health services, to pick two, there are a billion jobs each waiting to be done. Programming probably also has a billion jobs available. Even cooking, we could move to a personal chef based food system and that would create a billion jobs. I see no evidence that there is “less for humans to do” today than there was at times past. I don’t count wage stagnation as evidence because I believe it’s the result of widespread racketeering.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > What I see is that there is plenty more work we’re not even trying to do, because we’re busy with the work we’re doing. Just in climate change-mitigating forestry and mental health services, to pick two, there are a billion jobs each waiting to be done. Programming probably also has a billion jobs available. Even cooking, we could move to a personal chef based food system and that would create a billion jobs. There's infinity of jobs waiting to be done. There isn't, and never was, a problem with lack of things for people to do. The problem was and is the lack of things to do for which someone else is willing to pay - which almost always requires that someone else to be able to turn the result they bought into more money for themselves. Mitigating climate change doesn't yield much money to anyone right now, so there aren't many people willing to pay to do it.
MRD85 8y ago
The bigger issue is what will happen if our children don't need to work hard. A world where 95% of people don't need to work at all sounds great until we factor in wealth inequality.
- pygy_ 8y ago
  A world where 95% don't need to work is a world where 95% of the people don't have any economic power and will be left to starve.
  - Jill_the_Pill 8y ago
    That sounds like a collective choice, not a logical consequence. Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people? Or would you work toward some sort of redistribution -- either of resources or hours? edit: on reflection, probably 95% starving people would accomplish that redistribution pretty efficiently with or without you!
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      "Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people?" Just go to a third world country or even places like New York or San Francisco. You'll see super wealthy, shiny places right next to homeless people or slums and the wealthy people seem OK with this or don't feel enough discomfort to do anything. Or they just do enough to get these people out of sight.
    - watwut 8y ago
      Looking at history, redistribution does not hapen out of good heart. So yes, 5% will be surrounded by starving people and blame those people. Also, the 5% is likely to be selection biased for power hungry and ruthless (cause there will be struggle for those 5% positions).
    - burrows 8y ago
      My Musk-Samsung RoboServant (TM) discourages the ruffians quite effectively.

hitekker 8y ago

I believe Yuval Harari in Sapiens once said all social movements start by saying "the world, as it is, is unnatural. At some point, we were moving in the right direction but then we took a detour. We need to get back on track for the world to be natural again." You are correct that the sentiment of "things will get better, as long as we follow the way" is an empty appeal to the future. But "things use to be better, we've lost our way", that the systems around is are unnatural and therefore wrong, is a powerful drive for a complacent society. A catalyst for social change. As the oft-repeated 1984 quote goes, "Control the present, control the past. Control the past, control the future."

roymurdock 8y ago
natural has a completely different definition for different groups of people. was it “natural” for european settlers in America to have slaves up until the 18th century? was it “natural” for native Americans to live communally and without the ideas of property rights and ownership brought over by the Europeans? natural is such a vague and loaded term that its nearly meaningless when applied to “us” as human beings the real key is labor productivity. unless we invent new machines that make us more productive, and re jump start the demand for skilled human labor as we saw during the various industrialization periods of the last 120 years, then we will continue down a path where humans are less and less valued as their skills atrophy and they can be replaced by automated systems or more often cheaper labor doing a decent job at a much lower rate
- spynxic 8y ago
  natural (comparative more natural, superlative most natural) 1. That exists and evolved within the confines of an ecosystem. 2. Of or relating to nature. 3. Without artificial additives. 4. As expected; reasonable. ------ mechanical (comparative more mechanical, superlative most mechanical) 1. (now rare) Characteristic of someone who does manual labour for a living; coarse, vulgar. 2. Related to mechanics (the branch of physics that deals with forces acting on mass). 3. Related to mechanics (the design and construction of machines) 4. Done by machine. (These definitions were sourced from Wiktionary) I hope these senses of the terms natural and mechanical help with drawing a clear distinction between what is authentically natural and what is not. If you seek further context about the distinction then search out for senses of the terms nature and artificial. Also, in response to the high regard for labor productivity, remember that efficiency can be a force for both creation and destruction.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  > then we will continue down a path where humans are less and less valued as their skills atrophy and they can be replaced by automated systems Have we started down this path? Are human less valued than they were 100 years ago? 50 years ago? Based on what? What I see is that there is plenty more work we’re not even trying to do, because we’re busy with the work we’re doing. Just in climate change-mitigating forestry and mental health services, to pick two, there are a billion jobs each waiting to be done. Programming probably also has a billion jobs available. Even cooking, we could move to a personal chef based food system and that would create a billion jobs. I see no evidence that there is “less for humans to do” today than there was at times past. I don’t count wage stagnation as evidence because I believe it’s the result of widespread racketeering.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > What I see is that there is plenty more work we’re not even trying to do, because we’re busy with the work we’re doing. Just in climate change-mitigating forestry and mental health services, to pick two, there are a billion jobs each waiting to be done. Programming probably also has a billion jobs available. Even cooking, we could move to a personal chef based food system and that would create a billion jobs. There's infinity of jobs waiting to be done. There isn't, and never was, a problem with lack of things for people to do. The problem was and is the lack of things to do for which someone else is willing to pay - which almost always requires that someone else to be able to turn the result they bought into more money for themselves. Mitigating climate change doesn't yield much money to anyone right now, so there aren't many people willing to pay to do it.

MRD85 8y ago

The bigger issue is what will happen if our children don't need to work hard. A world where 95% of people don't need to work at all sounds great until we factor in wealth inequality.

pygy_ 8y ago
A world where 95% don't need to work is a world where 95% of the people don't have any economic power and will be left to starve.
- Jill_the_Pill 8y ago
  That sounds like a collective choice, not a logical consequence. Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people? Or would you work toward some sort of redistribution -- either of resources or hours? edit: on reflection, probably 95% starving people would accomplish that redistribution pretty efficiently with or without you!
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people?" Just go to a third world country or even places like New York or San Francisco. You'll see super wealthy, shiny places right next to homeless people or slums and the wealthy people seem OK with this or don't feel enough discomfort to do anything. Or they just do enough to get these people out of sight.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Looking at history, redistribution does not hapen out of good heart. So yes, 5% will be surrounded by starving people and blame those people. Also, the 5% is likely to be selection biased for power hungry and ruthless (cause there will be struggle for those 5% positions).
  - burrows 8y ago
    My Musk-Samsung RoboServant (TM) discourages the ruffians quite effectively.