4 ms·

> Are you saying it's good enough because you and your dearest have it good? In North-Western Europe? It's good enough for everyone, more than good enough, it'

> Are you saying it's good enough because you and your dearest have it good? In North-Western Europe? It's good enough for everyone, more than good enough, it's too much, we're suffering the illnesses of abundance, not of scarcity, we're obese, not starving, we're bored, not busy. The lowest 10% has never lived a better life, objectively. I assume your issue isn't objective measurements but relative qualities? I.e. how good is the poorest person's life compared to the richest? It's still pretty damn great. We do have a class-gap in life expectancy, but it's small, much, much smaller than it was a hundred years ago and let's not talk about any time before that. > For most of humans history, humans have worked a few hours a day, or 15 hours/week. First of all that's inaccurate because you're counting "work" as in "work for money". A subsistence farmer has never worked 15 hours/week, and even someone who has worked in some form of employment has had a lot more home-work than they do now. Specialization means everyone works more in one thing but doesn't have to work a little bit in everything. Second: they've lived very simple and quite short lives. We can have that as well, but we don't. We want to live healthy and long and have retirements where we don't work at all that span 10-20% of our adult life span. That's unprecedented on a large scale. > People should only work as much as necessary What's necessary? Should they have a purse for a rainy day? Then they'll have to work more than what's strictly necessary for today's survival. Should they have retirement? Well, add another 20% and so on. > We shouldn't try to create such big communities like the US, or Denmark for that matter. I absolutely agree, but that's not going to happen. UBI may well be the fuel you need for the acceleration of society's splintering. Maybe you can try the small commune afterwards, if anyone is still alive. > Actually more people in absolute numbers are not able to meet their basic nutritional needs every single they than ever before[2] so while I have it pretty great, it's pretty damn bad a huge amount of people. Right, but we're talking about modern societies, not the situation in the third world, aren't we? How many people in Denmark aren't able to meet their basic nutritional needs? > Also I'm not sure why you think we couldn't at least build something like this again, if all else failed. Oh, I'm sure we could. It's just that we'll have to wade through rivers of blood and endure unimaginable amounts of human suffering. We do not just stand on the shoulders of giants, we stand on the bones of the many that lived and died before us to bring about the world we have today. If we get thrown back a few hundred years, we'll probably get back here again, but it'll take a while, and it will take a lot of blood, sweat and tears. It's easy to speak from the privileged position of wealthy peacefulness about how easy it was achieved and to wager it on a coin flip. It's a different story for those that achieved it, much like the politicians that send soldiers to war and the soldiers that do the dying and the killing.

fredsir 7y ago
> In North-Western Europe? It's good enough for everyone, more than good enough, it's too much, we're suffering the illnesses of abundance, not of scarcity, we're obese, not starving, we're bored, not busy. That's an extreme exaggeration. Sure, I, and possibly you, are experiencing this. But still here, there are people who are not. Doesn't matter though. Even if everyone here had it good, we do so because of the exploitation of others in different parts of the world. It's all connected, and we have to fix it all, to fix anything. > The lowest 10% has never lived a better life, objectively. I assume your issue isn't objective measurements but relative qualities? I.e. how good is the poorest person's life compared to the richest? It's still pretty damn great. We do have a class-gap in life expectancy, but it's small, much, much smaller than it was a hundred years ago and let's not talk about any time before that. Objectively? If you mean having more materialistic stuff than ever before? Sure. But what about life quality? Being able to relax, not having so many concerns, and so on. Sure, we have Netflix now, but we have also have for one a huge amount of mental illness. There are so much more about well-being than just having Netflix and a warm bed. > First of all that's inaccurate because you're counting "work" as in "work for money". A subsistence farmer has never worked 15 hours/week, and even someone who has worked in some form of employment has had a lot more home-work than they do now. Specialization means everyone works more in one thing but doesn't have to work a little bit in everything. I'm talking before there were farmers. Before it was possible to exploit others, because humans could only survive by caring for each other, because the tripe lived and died according to their team work. Surplus of food was not a possibility, so there was no way for anyone to hoard stuff, so compassion and sharing were the overall way of life for the most part because that gave the best chances of surviving. Back then, people surely hunted and gathered food, but it was in total hours not more than about 15 hours a week, sometimes less. That's the current consensus on the matter. Then agriculture happened and few other technologies were developed, and suddenly surplus was a possibility, and then some wanted to keep the surplus for themselves, and work hours increased for everyone else. > Second: they've lived very simple and quite short lives. We can have that as well, but we don't. We want to live healthy and long and have retirements where we don't work at all that span 10-20% of our adult life span. That's unprecedented on a large scale. We still produce many times more than we need. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't work a lot less and still produce all that's needed for all that. The only problem is that a few people keep such a big part of the wealth for themselves. > What's necessary? Should they have a purse for a rainy day? Then they'll have to work more than what's strictly necessary for today's survival. Should they have retirement? Well, add another 20% and so on. They should have all that, and they could and still only work say 15 hours a week. We still produce way too much of which too much of the wealth go to a few hands instead of being more evenly distributed. > I absolutely agree, but that's not going to happen. Sure it can, I don't see why not, and at least I'm gonna do whatever I can to fight the fight. > UBI may well be the fuel you need for the acceleration of society's splintering. Maybe you can try the small commune afterwards, if anyone is still alive. I think climate change, corvid-19 and all the next pandemics that are coming, are the fuel. > Right, but we're talking about modern societies, not the situation in the third world, aren't we? How many people in Denmark aren't able to meet their basic nutritional needs? I'm talking about all people in the whole wide world. I don't see why I shouldn't care for other people just because they are not part of my world directly, and I don't believe you can fix something, like climate change, or inequality, or a pandemic, without fixing it everywhere. Gresham's law; if bad things exist, they spread until there is nothing good left. > Oh, I'm sure we could. It's just that we'll have to wade through rivers of blood and endure unimaginable amounts of human suffering. We do not just stand on the shoulders of giants, we stand on the bones of the many that lived and died before us to bring about the world we have today. If we get thrown back a few hundred years, we'll probably get back here again, but it'll take a while, and it will take a lot of blood, sweat and tears. > It's easy to speak from the privileged position of wealthy peacefulness about how easy it was achieved and to wager it on a coin flip. It's a different story for those that achieved it, much like the politicians that send soldiers to war and the soldiers that do the dying and the killing. I'm convinced that if we don't do these things, it will be much worse. Climate change and future pandemics is not something our capitalist, oligarchical civilization are gonna fix, so if we don't fix it ourself, we will be much worse off.

fredsir 7y ago

> In North-Western Europe? It's good enough for everyone, more than good enough, it's too much, we're suffering the illnesses of abundance, not of scarcity, we're obese, not starving, we're bored, not busy. That's an extreme exaggeration. Sure, I, and possibly you, are experiencing this. But still here, there are people who are not. Doesn't matter though. Even if everyone here had it good, we do so because of the exploitation of others in different parts of the world. It's all connected, and we have to fix it all, to fix anything. > The lowest 10% has never lived a better life, objectively. I assume your issue isn't objective measurements but relative qualities? I.e. how good is the poorest person's life compared to the richest? It's still pretty damn great. We do have a class-gap in life expectancy, but it's small, much, much smaller than it was a hundred years ago and let's not talk about any time before that. Objectively? If you mean having more materialistic stuff than ever before? Sure. But what about life quality? Being able to relax, not having so many concerns, and so on. Sure, we have Netflix now, but we have also have for one a huge amount of mental illness. There are so much more about well-being than just having Netflix and a warm bed. > First of all that's inaccurate because you're counting "work" as in "work for money". A subsistence farmer has never worked 15 hours/week, and even someone who has worked in some form of employment has had a lot more home-work than they do now. Specialization means everyone works more in one thing but doesn't have to work a little bit in everything. I'm talking before there were farmers. Before it was possible to exploit others, because humans could only survive by caring for each other, because the tripe lived and died according to their team work. Surplus of food was not a possibility, so there was no way for anyone to hoard stuff, so compassion and sharing were the overall way of life for the most part because that gave the best chances of surviving. Back then, people surely hunted and gathered food, but it was in total hours not more than about 15 hours a week, sometimes less. That's the current consensus on the matter. Then agriculture happened and few other technologies were developed, and suddenly surplus was a possibility, and then some wanted to keep the surplus for themselves, and work hours increased for everyone else. > Second: they've lived very simple and quite short lives. We can have that as well, but we don't. We want to live healthy and long and have retirements where we don't work at all that span 10-20% of our adult life span. That's unprecedented on a large scale. We still produce many times more than we need. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't work a lot less and still produce all that's needed for all that. The only problem is that a few people keep such a big part of the wealth for themselves. > What's necessary? Should they have a purse for a rainy day? Then they'll have to work more than what's strictly necessary for today's survival. Should they have retirement? Well, add another 20% and so on. They should have all that, and they could and still only work say 15 hours a week. We still produce way too much of which too much of the wealth go to a few hands instead of being more evenly distributed. > I absolutely agree, but that's not going to happen. Sure it can, I don't see why not, and at least I'm gonna do whatever I can to fight the fight. > UBI may well be the fuel you need for the acceleration of society's splintering. Maybe you can try the small commune afterwards, if anyone is still alive. I think climate change, corvid-19 and all the next pandemics that are coming, are the fuel. > Right, but we're talking about modern societies, not the situation in the third world, aren't we? How many people in Denmark aren't able to meet their basic nutritional needs? I'm talking about all people in the whole wide world. I don't see why I shouldn't care for other people just because they are not part of my world directly, and I don't believe you can fix something, like climate change, or inequality, or a pandemic, without fixing it everywhere. Gresham's law; if bad things exist, they spread until there is nothing good left. > Oh, I'm sure we could. It's just that we'll have to wade through rivers of blood and endure unimaginable amounts of human suffering. We do not just stand on the shoulders of giants, we stand on the bones of the many that lived and died before us to bring about the world we have today. If we get thrown back a few hundred years, we'll probably get back here again, but it'll take a while, and it will take a lot of blood, sweat and tears. > It's easy to speak from the privileged position of wealthy peacefulness about how easy it was achieved and to wager it on a coin flip. It's a different story for those that achieved it, much like the politicians that send soldiers to war and the soldiers that do the dying and the killing. I'm convinced that if we don't do these things, it will be much worse. Climate change and future pandemics is not something our capitalist, oligarchical civilization are gonna fix, so if we don't fix it ourself, we will be much worse off.