5 ms·

Hmm, just a thought, but maybe that is an argument against the hyper-specialization of modern society. It would be nice to choose different things throughout a

Hmm, just a thought, but maybe that is an argument against the hyper-specialization of modern society. It would be nice to choose different things throughout a day/week/year, all productive, and all requiring some skill, but each one being a bit different providing physical or mental exercise of different types. Bending over all day to build something might not be great for humans, but sitting in a chair all day focusing probably isn't either. It would be nice to arrange a productive society that gave people the opportunity to move between the different types of productivity.

ska 7y ago
I don't think this is a new phenomena at all. Anthropologists can tell a lot about old civilizations by characteristic injuries, after all. I suspect that people have been screwing up their bodies with repetitive motions/positions since at least the dawn of agriculture. I suppose it is telling that this was the better alternative. I've known people who have constructed working lives for themselves that try and achieve this balance, but it is a difficult thing to do. I expect that it usually has an economic penalty of some sort, but if at least some of the work pays well it's not crazy. One way to manage it would be to find lucrative work roughly 1/2 time (i.e. "knowledge work" contracts) and then very intentionally spend the rest of your time outside and doing something active. If you've ever tried to negotiate a short week for less pay you'll probably realize this is difficult to arrange.
- Infernal 7y ago
  > I suppose it is telling that this was the better alternative. Presumably you mean "better for the individual", but I don't believe this is an assumption we can make. It seems clear that agriculture was better in a competitive sense than other ways of life at the time, though likely worse for many of the individuals involved.
  - ska 7y ago
    That was sloppy, sorry. I should have added "perceived" as there, or scare quotes on 'better'; I meant it in the sense that this was the path that was collectively chosen, i.e. the one that "won".
  - whiddershins 7y ago
    Actually I think it was clearly better at the group survival/displacement of other groups level. There’s no evidence it was necessarily better for any particular insividual’s quality of life.
- your-nanny 7y ago
  hell, you can tell smokers by the I dentation in their bones, or so I was told by one forensic anthropologist.
mlevental 7y ago
“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. 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 a 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.”
- jerf 7y ago
  That made some faint sense when he said it, though even that is easy to overestimate as many tasks of the day required more skill than Marx probably appreciated, but is gibbering lunacy if you want a 21st century technological society. Only a few people are honest enough to say they want socialism and would be perfectly happy to live an 18th century life to have it. Example: You could just pick up and be a farmer tomorrow, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBV6M7VOFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBV6M7VOFU Certainly not at a 21st century farmer level. (Consider your criticisms of that idea carefully, for instance "yeah but those practices aren't sustainable" will just get you "sustainable practices are going to be just as challenging or even more so" in reply, along with the fact it's not really a relevant point; M(r/s). I Decided To Be A Farmer This Week isn't going to come up with breakthrough solutions in sustainability, either, as they will be far too busy.)
  - mlevental 7y ago
    ...the quotation isn't a factual claim about skills necessary and no one who isn't a gibbering lunatic reads it that way. i was responding to someone who is very skilled (presumably) wishing they didn't need to be so specialized. edit: lots of people willfully misconstrue things. the same goes for Marx. if you've read any of the volumes of capital you'd understand that marxist positions aren't as asinine as "everyone needs to be a farmer in order for socialism to be viable".

ska 7y ago

I don't think this is a new phenomena at all. Anthropologists can tell a lot about old civilizations by characteristic injuries, after all. I suspect that people have been screwing up their bodies with repetitive motions/positions since at least the dawn of agriculture. I suppose it is telling that this was the better alternative. I've known people who have constructed working lives for themselves that try and achieve this balance, but it is a difficult thing to do. I expect that it usually has an economic penalty of some sort, but if at least some of the work pays well it's not crazy. One way to manage it would be to find lucrative work roughly 1/2 time (i.e. "knowledge work" contracts) and then very intentionally spend the rest of your time outside and doing something active. If you've ever tried to negotiate a short week for less pay you'll probably realize this is difficult to arrange.

Infernal 7y ago
> I suppose it is telling that this was the better alternative. Presumably you mean "better for the individual", but I don't believe this is an assumption we can make. It seems clear that agriculture was better in a competitive sense than other ways of life at the time, though likely worse for many of the individuals involved.
- ska 7y ago
  That was sloppy, sorry. I should have added "perceived" as there, or scare quotes on 'better'; I meant it in the sense that this was the path that was collectively chosen, i.e. the one that "won".
- whiddershins 7y ago
  Actually I think it was clearly better at the group survival/displacement of other groups level. There’s no evidence it was necessarily better for any particular insividual’s quality of life.
your-nanny 7y ago
hell, you can tell smokers by the I dentation in their bones, or so I was told by one forensic anthropologist.

mlevental 7y ago

“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. 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 a 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.”

jerf 7y ago
That made some faint sense when he said it, though even that is easy to overestimate as many tasks of the day required more skill than Marx probably appreciated, but is gibbering lunacy if you want a 21st century technological society. Only a few people are honest enough to say they want socialism and would be perfectly happy to live an 18th century life to have it. Example: You could just pick up and be a farmer tomorrow, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBV6M7VOFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBV6M7VOFU Certainly not at a 21st century farmer level. (Consider your criticisms of that idea carefully, for instance "yeah but those practices aren't sustainable" will just get you "sustainable practices are going to be just as challenging or even more so" in reply, along with the fact it's not really a relevant point; M(r/s). I Decided To Be A Farmer This Week isn't going to come up with breakthrough solutions in sustainability, either, as they will be far too busy.)
- mlevental 7y ago
  ...the quotation isn't a factual claim about skills necessary and no one who isn't a gibbering lunatic reads it that way. i was responding to someone who is very skilled (presumably) wishing they didn't need to be so specialized. edit: lots of people willfully misconstrue things. the same goes for Marx. if you've read any of the volumes of capital you'd understand that marxist positions aren't as asinine as "everyone needs to be a farmer in order for socialism to be viable".