4 ms·

The author seems to suggest that most folks have some kind of ethical/moral dilemma around how to best look out for their personal well being by spending their

by twox2 6y ago

The author seems to suggest that most folks have some kind of ethical/moral dilemma around how to best look out for their personal well being by spending their money to make themselves as comfortable as possible. Pretty sure normal people don't think this way.

noir_lord 6y ago
I didn't, I looked at the risks as objectively as possible and immediately switched to working remote forever (changing job in the process) and yes I realise I have the privilege of been able to do that and no I don't feel guilty about it either - it's not like I got into programming at 7 30-odd years ago with the intention of one day been able to withdraw into my bubble.
setr 6y ago
The author seems to be of the opinion that if others are suffering, it is each individual's moral obligation to suffer as well, and not to improve their own lives at the (potential) cost of others, or really even at all. My own belief (at least, in theory) is that everyone should operate with the goal of improving their own lives, with the moral obligation being to improve yourself without dragging others down. And by doing so, in the distributed sense, the whole system will improve. The problem of course naturally extends from there being a limited set of resources. The secondary issue the author is complaining about is digital isolation, but that's not so much a problem of rich vs poor -- any group approaching a minimum level of wealth (which for a first-world country, is not set that high, relatively) is currently falling into the pit of digital isolation. Physical isolation (beyond your home) is generally more expensive, and reserved mainly for the very wealthy.
freeone3000 6y ago
How can you do well while others are doing so badly? When evictions are happening, how do you buy a new graphics card? When food stamps are being cut, how do you justify an iPhone? It's normal to have empathy to other people in bad situations.
- elindbe2 6y ago
  Couldn't you say that at any point in time? There hasn't been a time any of us were alive when, for example, kids in poor countries weren't starving or dying due to treatable diseases. So it seems your point is you should never live well, correct? I would agree if that's your view.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- twox2 6y ago
  If you strongly believe this, then you should probably put your money where your mouth is, like this guy: http://www.williammacaskill.com/ http://www.williammacaskill.com/ It's noble, but I guess it's up to you to chose your standard of living. Empathy means you feel what impoverished people feel, but do you have to impoverish yourself also? Also, as a whole, the world is better than it ever has been at any point in time. I think it might have Bill Gates that did an interesting talk about this, but I'm having trouble finding it. It's a glass half full or half empty scenario I guess.

by twox2 6y ago

noir_lord 6y ago

I didn't, I looked at the risks as objectively as possible and immediately switched to working remote forever (changing job in the process) and yes I realise I have the privilege of been able to do that and no I don't feel guilty about it either - it's not like I got into programming at 7 30-odd years ago with the intention of one day been able to withdraw into my bubble.

setr 6y ago

The author seems to be of the opinion that if others are suffering, it is each individual's moral obligation to suffer as well, and not to improve their own lives at the (potential) cost of others, or really even at all. My own belief (at least, in theory) is that everyone should operate with the goal of improving their own lives, with the moral obligation being to improve yourself without dragging others down. And by doing so, in the distributed sense, the whole system will improve. The problem of course naturally extends from there being a limited set of resources. The secondary issue the author is complaining about is digital isolation, but that's not so much a problem of rich vs poor -- any group approaching a minimum level of wealth (which for a first-world country, is not set that high, relatively) is currently falling into the pit of digital isolation. Physical isolation (beyond your home) is generally more expensive, and reserved mainly for the very wealthy.

freeone3000 6y ago

How can you do well while others are doing so badly? When evictions are happening, how do you buy a new graphics card? When food stamps are being cut, how do you justify an iPhone? It's normal to have empathy to other people in bad situations.

elindbe2 6y ago
Couldn't you say that at any point in time? There hasn't been a time any of us were alive when, for example, kids in poor countries weren't starving or dying due to treatable diseases. So it seems your point is you should never live well, correct? I would agree if that's your view.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
twox2 6y ago
If you strongly believe this, then you should probably put your money where your mouth is, like this guy: http://www.williammacaskill.com/ http://www.williammacaskill.com/ It's noble, but I guess it's up to you to chose your standard of living. Empathy means you feel what impoverished people feel, but do you have to impoverish yourself also? Also, as a whole, the world is better than it ever has been at any point in time. I think it might have Bill Gates that did an interesting talk about this, but I'm having trouble finding it. It's a glass half full or half empty scenario I guess.