4 ms·

HN is very much against the whole anti-work movement and still likes to push a bootstraps narrative as a collective. It makes sense when you think of what Y Com

HN is very much against the whole anti-work movement and still likes to push a bootstraps narrative as a collective. It makes sense when you think of what Y Combinator is and the kinds of people it attracts.

wolverine876 5y ago
What are you suggesting as an alternative? Less economic opportunity?
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Just that there is a future where those who don’t want to work a menial job aren’t forced to do so in order to survive. Which may mean accepting a lower level of productivity. But a lot of people get bored without work, and extra money to buy nice things will always motivate people, so there will still be a large labor pool and automation can take care of the rest.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    This technocratic vision of the future does not square away with human nature and reality. Much more likely is a Butlerian Jihad to destroy automation and return us to a more pastoral way of life, even with advanced technology. Only socially awkward engineers, business majors (most of whom are incredibly anti-social contrary to common perception), and finance types actually believe in this vision. Normal people are horrified, or will be once they actually experience what this entails. Humans are not meant to lack meaningful work.
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      Is it meaningful work if it can be easily automated by contemporary technology but we choose not to? And I agree that we do need meaningful work on a human level; it’s why I don’t say “nobody should work”. But meaningful work might only mean two hours a day. If that’s all you want to do, you’re prolly not gonna be able to afford a new iPhone any time soon but you shouldn’t go hungry, homeless or untreated.
    - jnwatson 5y ago
      > Humans are not meant to lack meaningful work. Citation needed.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        The opposite claim 'humans are okay lackin meaningful work' also needs a citation, as its easily demonstrably false in history. Contrary to popular belief our civilization is not the only one that has come close to being able to provide basically all its needs. Many other civilizations have and eventually the class whose needs are provided for disintegrates due to their own decay. We will make claims that the 'barbarians' sacked rome, and while this is technically true, they are not the reason for the decline of the Roman Empire. The truth is, by the time the barbarians attacked, rome was a shell of its former self. In times past, the Roman army would have put an end to the barbarians. But the societal decay from the elites of the empire meant the systems that preserved them there slowly fell into disrepair. Broadly speaking we are witnessing the same thing now except at a grander scale because now even for the lower classes it's not obvious they need to work.
iammisc 5y ago
But the comment I replied to was not 'anti-work'... far from it

wolverine876 5y ago

What are you suggesting as an alternative? Less economic opportunity?

wayoutthere 5y ago
Just that there is a future where those who don’t want to work a menial job aren’t forced to do so in order to survive. Which may mean accepting a lower level of productivity. But a lot of people get bored without work, and extra money to buy nice things will always motivate people, so there will still be a large labor pool and automation can take care of the rest.
- iammisc 5y ago
  This technocratic vision of the future does not square away with human nature and reality. Much more likely is a Butlerian Jihad to destroy automation and return us to a more pastoral way of life, even with advanced technology. Only socially awkward engineers, business majors (most of whom are incredibly anti-social contrary to common perception), and finance types actually believe in this vision. Normal people are horrified, or will be once they actually experience what this entails. Humans are not meant to lack meaningful work.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Is it meaningful work if it can be easily automated by contemporary technology but we choose not to? And I agree that we do need meaningful work on a human level; it’s why I don’t say “nobody should work”. But meaningful work might only mean two hours a day. If that’s all you want to do, you’re prolly not gonna be able to afford a new iPhone any time soon but you shouldn’t go hungry, homeless or untreated.
  - jnwatson 5y ago
    > Humans are not meant to lack meaningful work. Citation needed.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      The opposite claim 'humans are okay lackin meaningful work' also needs a citation, as its easily demonstrably false in history. Contrary to popular belief our civilization is not the only one that has come close to being able to provide basically all its needs. Many other civilizations have and eventually the class whose needs are provided for disintegrates due to their own decay. We will make claims that the 'barbarians' sacked rome, and while this is technically true, they are not the reason for the decline of the Roman Empire. The truth is, by the time the barbarians attacked, rome was a shell of its former self. In times past, the Roman army would have put an end to the barbarians. But the societal decay from the elites of the empire meant the systems that preserved them there slowly fell into disrepair. Broadly speaking we are witnessing the same thing now except at a grander scale because now even for the lower classes it's not obvious they need to work.

iammisc 5y ago

But the comment I replied to was not 'anti-work'... far from it