3 ms·

I like to imagine this in my head: What if we were stuck on a spaceship with 100 other humans? There’s a lot to maintain on a spaceship to keep it operating so

by jbob2000 6y ago

I like to imagine this in my head: What if we were stuck on a spaceship with 100 other humans? There’s a lot to maintain on a spaceship to keep it operating so we all don’t die. What if there was a contingent of 10 people on this ship who refused to help with the operations of the ship? They decide to hole up in the cargo bay, doing nothing but feeding their own desires from the replicators. 90 other people bust their balls to keep the ship running - long hours, deferring pleasure until the work is done, earning everything they work for. Now multiply the size of that ship by 70,000,000 and you have Earth.

Joof 6y ago
This is a pretty apples and oranges comparison. Suppose it takes 30 people to maintain the ship. 70 people are working on it, mostly doing administrative work that makes them feel important. 10 people decided to fuck off and form a band, but honestly we kinda like them. 10 people developed space sickness and are useless. 5 people snuck on board accidently and got shot into space and nobody really liked them anyway. And the final 5 keep talking about their start-up, whatever the hell that means. We'd jettison them, but we kinda want at least 70 people to run the ship and we have supplies for 100 people that honestly just burn sometimes.
- jbob2000 6y ago
  Your additions still fit my premise; that we should all be contributing to the “spaceship”. As it relates to one of the other comments - the homeless people outside his apartment do not, in any way, contribute to the spaceship. They must be provided for constantly. That’s why people take issue with vagrancy, there’s no contribution back after they have taken.
  - adewinter 6y ago
    So in the past some people took solutions to this problem to the extreme because they'd decided a certain set were "surplus to requirements". Obviously you're not advocating for that. Given that we are historically piss poor at correctly deciding who "is not contributing" and, actually, the "ship" still appears to be running (and if it isn't I strongly doubt it's because of the vagrancy of a few) is it really an issue whether a few don't actually do work/contribute?

Joof 6y ago

This is a pretty apples and oranges comparison. Suppose it takes 30 people to maintain the ship. 70 people are working on it, mostly doing administrative work that makes them feel important. 10 people decided to fuck off and form a band, but honestly we kinda like them. 10 people developed space sickness and are useless. 5 people snuck on board accidently and got shot into space and nobody really liked them anyway. And the final 5 keep talking about their start-up, whatever the hell that means. We'd jettison them, but we kinda want at least 70 people to run the ship and we have supplies for 100 people that honestly just burn sometimes.

jbob2000 6y ago
Your additions still fit my premise; that we should all be contributing to the “spaceship”. As it relates to one of the other comments - the homeless people outside his apartment do not, in any way, contribute to the spaceship. They must be provided for constantly. That’s why people take issue with vagrancy, there’s no contribution back after they have taken.
- adewinter 6y ago
  So in the past some people took solutions to this problem to the extreme because they'd decided a certain set were "surplus to requirements". Obviously you're not advocating for that. Given that we are historically piss poor at correctly deciding who "is not contributing" and, actually, the "ship" still appears to be running (and if it isn't I strongly doubt it's because of the vagrancy of a few) is it really an issue whether a few don't actually do work/contribute?