4 ms·

the question reduces to something like "is society entitled to the brain cycles of particularly smart people?". if so, then one can criticize just about anythin

the question reduces to something like "is society entitled to the brain cycles of particularly smart people?". if so, then one can criticize just about anything smart people spend time thinking about that doesn't create material returns for their communities.

VLM 6y ago
> that doesn't create material returns for their communities. More realistically, for the elite in charge of their communities. Its a practical problem for employment. No company complains about smart people not making their coworkers lives better; its all about "stealing from the company" by doing projects at home on their own time using their own materials, that may or may not be the feudal property of their owner/employers depending on their state of residence's attitude toward modern slavery.
repsilat 6y ago
> the question reduces to something like "is society entitled to the brain cycles of particularly smart people?". No, it doesn't. A conclusion that something is a drag on society is not necessarily (and frequently not) an argument for banning it. The implication only exists in a pure form if one assumes a "government knows best" sort of politics. Label it what you like, I'm not going to pick fights. I am a bit worried about this line of reasoning, though -- basically saying it isn't a line of thought that can lead to good policy, so it probably shouldn't be investigated or argued.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I don't believe anyone is seriously talking about banning factorio, but I do have a hard time trusting that an affirmative answer to these questions isn't accompanied by some level of value judgement. how could I not? we are literally contemplating all the great things that could have been accomplished if nerds didn't spend so much time playing certain video games. you never hear about all the furniture that could have been moved for the elderly if people didn't spend so much time at that damned gym. frankly, I think we should not care so much about what people do with their leisure time, as long it isn't actively harming anyone (ie, not in a "what could have been" sense). if we want smart people to do more useful stuff, we should figure out how to pay them for it.
  - repsilat 6y ago
    > I do have a hard time trusting that an affirmative answer to these questions isn't accompanied by some level of value judgement Sure, I'll grant "value judgement", and I don't have much of a problem with it. I think people saying X is a waste of time are often right and often misguided, and it's a useful kind of conversation in general. The comment I replied to said this was about whether people are entitled to waste time, though, which is a stronger argument that I object to.
WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
It is deeper than that because even if we were to assume society was entitled to them, we still wouldn't know how best to optimize them. To what extent does play involving complex problems contribute to those brain cycles being worth as much as they are. Also, I think we can represent the problem in a different way to make it more desirable to be solved. Instead of being entitled, we can represent it as incentivizing trade. So rephrase it into "Can society incentivize particularly smart people to trade brain cycles." I think this one has an decently agreeable answer of yes. Having now answered it, we can then approach optimizing the market for our society which would include having more particularly smart people to trade with (especially since I suspect brain cycles are somewhat unique per person). And is allowing people to sharpen their minds using thought intensive play one method of achieving that goal? Sure, it may lead to those people being less willing to trade their brain cycles (because they now can use them on Factorio instead), but it also means that more people now have brain cycles to trade.
essentialoils 6y ago
does it? we're simply considering input -> output. society does not own your brain, do with it whatever pleases you. how you feel about your responsibility, if any, to your species is entirely your business, not mine. that's basically belief system (secular or spiritual) territory. do i have rights in respect to society? does society have rights in respect to me? these are interesting questions, but not what i had intended. to be verbose: since smart people are a limited resource it is imho correct to note that an intellectually, emotionally, and life-focus demanding activity, such as chess, that has not (and can not) ever transfer knowledge gains in that closed system to other domains of concern to our species, is in fact, as a matter of simple math, sapping a precious resource. (but i'm open to the suggestion that maybe chess is keeping society safe from otherwise unoccupied mad geniuses -- calling B.F. .. :)

VLM 6y ago

> that doesn't create material returns for their communities. More realistically, for the elite in charge of their communities. Its a practical problem for employment. No company complains about smart people not making their coworkers lives better; its all about "stealing from the company" by doing projects at home on their own time using their own materials, that may or may not be the feudal property of their owner/employers depending on their state of residence's attitude toward modern slavery.

repsilat 6y ago

> the question reduces to something like "is society entitled to the brain cycles of particularly smart people?". No, it doesn't. A conclusion that something is a drag on society is not necessarily (and frequently not) an argument for banning it. The implication only exists in a pure form if one assumes a "government knows best" sort of politics. Label it what you like, I'm not going to pick fights. I am a bit worried about this line of reasoning, though -- basically saying it isn't a line of thought that can lead to good policy, so it probably shouldn't be investigated or argued.

leetcrew 6y ago
I don't believe anyone is seriously talking about banning factorio, but I do have a hard time trusting that an affirmative answer to these questions isn't accompanied by some level of value judgement. how could I not? we are literally contemplating all the great things that could have been accomplished if nerds didn't spend so much time playing certain video games. you never hear about all the furniture that could have been moved for the elderly if people didn't spend so much time at that damned gym. frankly, I think we should not care so much about what people do with their leisure time, as long it isn't actively harming anyone (ie, not in a "what could have been" sense). if we want smart people to do more useful stuff, we should figure out how to pay them for it.
- repsilat 6y ago
  > I do have a hard time trusting that an affirmative answer to these questions isn't accompanied by some level of value judgement Sure, I'll grant "value judgement", and I don't have much of a problem with it. I think people saying X is a waste of time are often right and often misguided, and it's a useful kind of conversation in general. The comment I replied to said this was about whether people are entitled to waste time, though, which is a stronger argument that I object to.

WindyLakeReturn 6y ago

It is deeper than that because even if we were to assume society was entitled to them, we still wouldn't know how best to optimize them. To what extent does play involving complex problems contribute to those brain cycles being worth as much as they are. Also, I think we can represent the problem in a different way to make it more desirable to be solved. Instead of being entitled, we can represent it as incentivizing trade. So rephrase it into "Can society incentivize particularly smart people to trade brain cycles." I think this one has an decently agreeable answer of yes. Having now answered it, we can then approach optimizing the market for our society which would include having more particularly smart people to trade with (especially since I suspect brain cycles are somewhat unique per person). And is allowing people to sharpen their minds using thought intensive play one method of achieving that goal? Sure, it may lead to those people being less willing to trade their brain cycles (because they now can use them on Factorio instead), but it also means that more people now have brain cycles to trade.

essentialoils 6y ago

does it? we're simply considering input -> output. society does not own your brain, do with it whatever pleases you. how you feel about your responsibility, if any, to your species is entirely your business, not mine. that's basically belief system (secular or spiritual) territory. do i have rights in respect to society? does society have rights in respect to me? these are interesting questions, but not what i had intended. to be verbose: since smart people are a limited resource it is imho correct to note that an intellectually, emotionally, and life-focus demanding activity, such as chess, that has not (and can not) ever transfer knowledge gains in that closed system to other domains of concern to our species, is in fact, as a matter of simple math, sapping a precious resource. (but i'm open to the suggestion that maybe chess is keeping society safe from otherwise unoccupied mad geniuses -- calling B.F. .. :)