6 ms·

I also feel that this has ruined society. People use to be more rounded. People had knowledge about music, clothing, food, etc. Now people learn one professi

I also feel that this has ruined society. People use to be more rounded. People had knowledge about music, clothing, food, etc. Now people learn one profession, and the majority of info that they learn is just about the bureaucratic aspects, regarding their tasks. Without rounded people the quality of everything drops. People can't distinguish what makes quality clothing, what is an important feature of a car. All we are left with is terrible marketing.

all2 8y ago
> People use to be more rounded. People who could afford to be were more well rounded.
- leftyted 8y ago
  https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/books-vs-cigarettes/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
- mymythisisthis 8y ago
  I disagree. Most people until the 1930s were farmers. It was the largest class of people. Farmers really needed to know a lot, about a wide amount of things; mechanics, animal husbandry, weather, markets, sales... People also use to live in smaller communities. So they understood each others' roles. Many people in smaller communities also had multiple roles/jobs. There are studies that small towns also produce better athletes for this reason https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279469393_Community_Size_in_Youth_Sport_Settings_Examining_Developmental_Assets_and_Sport_Withdrawal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279469393_Community... With specialization I think that the overall general knowledge of people has declined.
  - all2 8y ago
    This reminds me of Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" [0]. The volume of knowledge the protagonist displays is phenomenal, in my opinion. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/86 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/86
  - hellisothers 8y ago
    Reading about farming at the turn of the century there is nothing to envy there, most farmers were bare-foot and starving. I’d have to dig up the references but I think Hume espoused specialization as a cornerstone of advancement for our species.
claudiawerner 8y ago
You might not like what he has to say, or you might disagree with his visions, but Marx, especially for his day, was especially insightful on this point: >He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. Of course he was also a visionary in this idea of alienation, which makes up the core of his early work and is persistent through his mature work. To him, this alienation from one's species-being to achieve ends set by others is only a core part of class society, and it can be overcome.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  It would seem to me, though, that society would lose the advantages of specialization. If I decide I want to fish for a while rather than being a computer programmer, well, I'm a professional computer programmer, but an amateur fisherman, and not even a very good amateur. If society needs the fish to keep from going hungry, it needs good fishermen and women, not just whoever felt like fishing that afternoon. If it needs the cattle for the food supply, it needs something better than whoever felt like rearing cattle that evening. And when I go back to being a computer programmer, I very much do not want to untangle the mess of whatever amateur felt like programming on the afternoon that I went fishing. But it is true that specialization leads to alienation, or (a term I think might express it better) isolation or disconnection. I'm disconnected from the fish I eat, because I'm a computer programmer and not a fisherman. I'm disconnected from the professional fishermen and women, too. That may not have been the sense that Marx meant, but it's also true.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago
  The tension between > where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes and > society regulates the general production seems like it's still a bit of a challenge
beat 8y ago
We all got rounded by going uphill both ways in the snow. There was no Golden Age. People have always been the way they are now.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  I don’t think there is any doubt that our roles have become more specialised over time. It seems an inevitable consequence of globalisation.
  - beat 8y ago
    Our jobs, maybe. But I don't see this spilling over into our personal lives. If anything, the problem is too much choice. I don't know how old people are or how much they've dealt with people who are truly poor or uneducated, but the narrowness of experience is really telling when you do. How much taste and sophistication is one supposed to develop if they can't even read, or never travel? But that was the norm not so long ago.
    - mymythisisthis 8y ago
      Statistically we've become more stationary. "Back in the late 1940s, when the Census Bureau started collecting this type of information, roughly 20% of the population moved in a given year, Ihrke referenced. Since then, the rate has fallen to between 11.5% and 12.5%." https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-moving-at-historically-low-rates-census-bureau-reports-300364306.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-moving-at...
      - beat 8y ago
        Moving isn't the same as traveling. It's not likely to induce a new cultural experience the way that, say, visiting another country will.
        tonyedgecombe 8y ago

all2 8y ago

> People use to be more rounded. People who could afford to be were more well rounded.

leftyted 8y ago
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/books-vs-cigarettes/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
mymythisisthis 8y ago
I disagree. Most people until the 1930s were farmers. It was the largest class of people. Farmers really needed to know a lot, about a wide amount of things; mechanics, animal husbandry, weather, markets, sales... People also use to live in smaller communities. So they understood each others' roles. Many people in smaller communities also had multiple roles/jobs. There are studies that small towns also produce better athletes for this reason https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279469393_Community_Size_in_Youth_Sport_Settings_Examining_Developmental_Assets_and_Sport_Withdrawal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279469393_Community... With specialization I think that the overall general knowledge of people has declined.
- all2 8y ago
  This reminds me of Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" [0]. The volume of knowledge the protagonist displays is phenomenal, in my opinion. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/86 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/86
- hellisothers 8y ago
  Reading about farming at the turn of the century there is nothing to envy there, most farmers were bare-foot and starving. I’d have to dig up the references but I think Hume espoused specialization as a cornerstone of advancement for our species.

claudiawerner 8y ago

You might not like what he has to say, or you might disagree with his visions, but Marx, especially for his day, was especially insightful on this point: >He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. Of course he was also a visionary in this idea of alienation, which makes up the core of his early work and is persistent through his mature work. To him, this alienation from one's species-being to achieve ends set by others is only a core part of class society, and it can be overcome.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
It would seem to me, though, that society would lose the advantages of specialization. If I decide I want to fish for a while rather than being a computer programmer, well, I'm a professional computer programmer, but an amateur fisherman, and not even a very good amateur. If society needs the fish to keep from going hungry, it needs good fishermen and women, not just whoever felt like fishing that afternoon. If it needs the cattle for the food supply, it needs something better than whoever felt like rearing cattle that evening. And when I go back to being a computer programmer, I very much do not want to untangle the mess of whatever amateur felt like programming on the afternoon that I went fishing. But it is true that specialization leads to alienation, or (a term I think might express it better) isolation or disconnection. I'm disconnected from the fish I eat, because I'm a computer programmer and not a fisherman. I'm disconnected from the professional fishermen and women, too. That may not have been the sense that Marx meant, but it's also true.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
The tension between > where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes and > society regulates the general production seems like it's still a bit of a challenge

beat 8y ago

We all got rounded by going uphill both ways in the snow. There was no Golden Age. People have always been the way they are now.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I don’t think there is any doubt that our roles have become more specialised over time. It seems an inevitable consequence of globalisation.
- beat 8y ago
  Our jobs, maybe. But I don't see this spilling over into our personal lives. If anything, the problem is too much choice. I don't know how old people are or how much they've dealt with people who are truly poor or uneducated, but the narrowness of experience is really telling when you do. How much taste and sophistication is one supposed to develop if they can't even read, or never travel? But that was the norm not so long ago.
  - mymythisisthis 8y ago
    Statistically we've become more stationary. "Back in the late 1940s, when the Census Bureau started collecting this type of information, roughly 20% of the population moved in a given year, Ihrke referenced. Since then, the rate has fallen to between 11.5% and 12.5%." https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-moving-at-historically-low-rates-census-bureau-reports-300364306.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-moving-at...
    - beat 8y ago
      Moving isn't the same as traveling. It's not likely to induce a new cultural experience the way that, say, visiting another country will.
      - tonyedgecombe 8y ago