5 ms·

I think you’re completely wrong about progress. We can travel in less than 24 hours to pretty much anywhere on the planet. We can put telescopes in space. We ca

I think you’re completely wrong about progress. We can travel in less than 24 hours to pretty much anywhere on the planet. We can put telescopes in space. We can speak to each other even when we’re in different cities. None of this would be possible if no-one worked. Either we all go back to being hunter gatherers, or we exploit the poor to do our fair share of the work that needs to be done for us to live the lifestyles we want to lead. You don’t want to work? Fine. But then you are not entitled to other people’s work product either. No computer, no electricity, no plants you don’t grow yourself, no meat you haven’t personally slaughtered. Don’t get me wrong, I still think we could be doing better. But the problem starts with consumerism and same-day shipping and buy-now, pay-later, and LaCroix, not with work. If we could reduce consumerism, we could for sure reduce our working hours significantly.

bjourne 5y ago
Well, I think technological progress is driven by human ingenuity and not work. I don't think work should be the entrance fee to society. You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. I should starve (since I can't hunt nor grow vegetables) and I should not have a computer or even electricity. I.e. I should be punished. I don't see how that improves my life or society. I think these ideas rub you the wrong way because your identity is tied to your work. If people see work as a problem rather than a solution then your status would evaporate. The guy working part-time as a dog walker and sleeps through most of it would be on an equal footing to you who work XX hours per week and earns $YYYk dollars per year.
- dnadler 5y ago
  I think what most people are saying is that if you're not working to feed yourself, then someone else is. And further, it's not fair to ask society to pick up the slack for people who could contribute, but choose not to. In other words: by saying you shouldn't starve for refusing to work, aren't you also saying that someone else should grow your food for you for free?
  - bjourne 5y ago
    My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Programming casino sites has value because people choose to spend the money that they earn gambling. Society decides which tasks have value and which don’t by whether consumers spend money on the work product produced by those tasks. Now, society’s way of working this out isn’t perfect, but how else should we determine which jobs are adding value and which are not?
      - bjourne 5y ago
        I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into this mess in the first place. You ask how we should decide what jobs has "value" and which hasn't. Well, if it isn't obvious that a job has "value" then perhaps it has no value?
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’? I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions. Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far. I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.
- NoPicklez 5y ago
  That's not true. You might have invented electricity or the computer through ingenuity, but who is going to build the infrastructure that supports it? Who is going to build the poles in your suburb to get the electricity to you? Who is going to build the telecommunications infrastructure and maintain it such that if it breaks there is someone there to fix it?
  - bjourne 5y ago
    How come volunteer fire departments exist?
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      I think most volunteer fire fighters have other jobs. https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighters-Do-they-also-have-another-job-If-so-how-do-they-have-time-to-be-firefighters https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighte...
      - bjourne 5y ago
        That doesn't answer my question, does it?
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        In the most literal sense no, but I think it does address your point. Honestly it’s an odd example to pick because there are paid firefighters too - why would you need to pay firefighters if enough people are willing to do it for free?
        bjourne 5y ago
        "How come volunteer fire departments exist?" is a rethorical quesiton. Whether volunteer firefighters have other jobs is beside the point. Clearly, useful tasks can be executed without a work context. The reason you need to pay firefighters is because society is work-centric.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  > You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. If you can’t hunt or grow vegetables, you should perform some other task that society thinks is valuable, and share your part of collective responsibility that way. Exploitation is already a big enough issue without us making it worse. Brave New World describes very well exactly what would happen - we would end up with worker castes and ruler castes. I see the work already moving in this direction and it is sad. I have absolutely no problems with people choosing to work fewer hours or in less lucrative professions, provided they are not expecting society to pick up their slack. Don’t forget that for every farmer in the fields, you also need some sort of supply chain and distribution network, you need people to build the trucks and drive them, you need people to gather the resources needed to build trucks, you need the folks drilling for oil and those working at the oil refineries, as well as the ships that bring the oil to where it’s needed (as well as folks gathering the resources and turning them into ship parts etc.) We can afford this now because everyone who buys a vegetable in a shop pays a tiny fraction of all these costs. If nobody had to pay for vegetables any more, it’s not just the farmer who is working ‘for free’. This is just one small product, and the simplest example I could think of. I would imagine that computers and the internet would have significantly more people who would need to work for free in order for you to have a computer.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    > No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
      - 5y ago

bjourne 5y ago

Well, I think technological progress is driven by human ingenuity and not work. I don't think work should be the entrance fee to society. You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. I should starve (since I can't hunt nor grow vegetables) and I should not have a computer or even electricity. I.e. I should be punished. I don't see how that improves my life or society. I think these ideas rub you the wrong way because your identity is tied to your work. If people see work as a problem rather than a solution then your status would evaporate. The guy working part-time as a dog walker and sleeps through most of it would be on an equal footing to you who work XX hours per week and earns $YYYk dollars per year.

dnadler 5y ago
I think what most people are saying is that if you're not working to feed yourself, then someone else is. And further, it's not fair to ask society to pick up the slack for people who could contribute, but choose not to. In other words: by saying you shouldn't starve for refusing to work, aren't you also saying that someone else should grow your food for you for free?
- bjourne 5y ago
  My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    Programming casino sites has value because people choose to spend the money that they earn gambling. Society decides which tasks have value and which don’t by whether consumers spend money on the work product produced by those tasks. Now, society’s way of working this out isn’t perfect, but how else should we determine which jobs are adding value and which are not?
    - bjourne 5y ago
      I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into this mess in the first place. You ask how we should decide what jobs has "value" and which hasn't. Well, if it isn't obvious that a job has "value" then perhaps it has no value?
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’? I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions. Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far. I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.
NoPicklez 5y ago
That's not true. You might have invented electricity or the computer through ingenuity, but who is going to build the infrastructure that supports it? Who is going to build the poles in your suburb to get the electricity to you? Who is going to build the telecommunications infrastructure and maintain it such that if it breaks there is someone there to fix it?
- bjourne 5y ago
  How come volunteer fire departments exist?
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    I think most volunteer fire fighters have other jobs. https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighters-Do-they-also-have-another-job-If-so-how-do-they-have-time-to-be-firefighters https://www.quora.com/I-dont-understand-volunteer-firefighte...
    - bjourne 5y ago
      That doesn't answer my question, does it?
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        In the most literal sense no, but I think it does address your point. Honestly it’s an odd example to pick because there are paid firefighters too - why would you need to pay firefighters if enough people are willing to do it for free?
        bjourne 5y ago
        "How come volunteer fire departments exist?" is a rethorical quesiton. Whether volunteer firefighters have other jobs is beside the point. Clearly, useful tasks can be executed without a work context. The reason you need to pay firefighters is because society is work-centric.
d1sxeyes 5y ago
> You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. If you can’t hunt or grow vegetables, you should perform some other task that society thinks is valuable, and share your part of collective responsibility that way. Exploitation is already a big enough issue without us making it worse. Brave New World describes very well exactly what would happen - we would end up with worker castes and ruler castes. I see the work already moving in this direction and it is sad. I have absolutely no problems with people choosing to work fewer hours or in less lucrative professions, provided they are not expecting society to pick up their slack. Don’t forget that for every farmer in the fields, you also need some sort of supply chain and distribution network, you need people to build the trucks and drive them, you need people to gather the resources needed to build trucks, you need the folks drilling for oil and those working at the oil refineries, as well as the ships that bring the oil to where it’s needed (as well as folks gathering the resources and turning them into ship parts etc.) We can afford this now because everyone who buys a vegetable in a shop pays a tiny fraction of all these costs. If nobody had to pay for vegetables any more, it’s not just the farmer who is working ‘for free’. This is just one small product, and the simplest example I could think of. I would imagine that computers and the internet would have significantly more people who would need to work for free in order for you to have a computer.
- bjourne 5y ago
  > No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
    - 5y ago