2 ms·

>> We have to collectively reject the engine of endless growth, and the aspiration for infinite productivity, before it breaks us all. Or, y'know, not be so fr

>> We have to collectively reject the engine of endless growth, and the aspiration for infinite productivity, before it breaks us all. Or, y'know, not be so fragile. My generation, GenX, didn't get to where we are as semi-successful slackers by whining, we did it by actually just arranging our own gigs and either accepting or rejecting the abuse of the capitalist system on a case-by-case basis. Appealing to the collective "but we're all so fucked, we're the first generation to have lower economic prospects than our parents" was fun for movie plots, but not something that would make us quit a job. It took two things to reach this point of maximalist outrage at the unfairness of working: 1. Boomers raised their kids to be snowflakes, 2. Then Boomers got old and started using their kids as beasts of burden. That's really all there is to it. Obviously, if you're stuck in that situation you want to tear down the whole system, but what do you think would happen if "we" rejected limitless growth and endless productivity? Nothing in this piece suggests a replacement for the drive to work, or the virtues of working and earning. Nothing in it contemplates what a society without those virtues might look like or what meaningful thing would replace the continuity of work in peoples' lives. You want to hang out with GenX'ers? Okay, here's me at 22: DUDE I DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP AND GO TO WORK. AGAIN. Here's me at 40: Thank God I kept going to work. You'll feel the same way. Hopefully. If our economic and political system manages to digest the double demographic humps of an elderly, uptight conservative group of selfish fools and their entitled, progressive and whining children.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Advising someone not to be fragile is a lot like telling them not to be so sick, or poor, or black, or gay, or male, or whatever. It's blaming the victim. It denies the problem. And it only works to the point it doesn't. Someday, someone you care about may wake up and discover that what was once possible is no longer. And that person might very well be you.
jseban 5y ago
> Nothing in this piece suggests a replacement for the drive to work, or the virtues of working and earning. Nothing in it contemplates what a society without those virtues might look like or what meaningful thing would replace the continuity of work in peoples' lives. Yeah and nothing acknowledges that this "dehumanising" exploitation also happens to be the source of all the nice things that we want and need, or admit that we will have to make sacrifices, and where and how these sacrifices should be made. Always throwing out the bathwater and just pretending that there is no baby. The hard thing about any political change is that change will always worsen things for some people, in some situations, there is no such thing as 100% positive change. And getting those people on board to actually make the sacrifices is the actual challenge, and in this case the author could at least bother to suggest how he/she would be willing to sacrifice to make up for these productivity losses, and/or how society will cut back on the rewards. I think we should keep the efficiency and use tech to its fullest potential, but just shorten the working hours, as a means to share the productivity gains.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Advising someone not to be fragile is a lot like telling them not to be so sick, or poor, or black, or gay, or male, or whatever. It's blaming the victim. It denies the problem. And it only works to the point it doesn't. Someday, someone you care about may wake up and discover that what was once possible is no longer. And that person might very well be you.

jseban 5y ago

> Nothing in this piece suggests a replacement for the drive to work, or the virtues of working and earning. Nothing in it contemplates what a society without those virtues might look like or what meaningful thing would replace the continuity of work in peoples' lives. Yeah and nothing acknowledges that this "dehumanising" exploitation also happens to be the source of all the nice things that we want and need, or admit that we will have to make sacrifices, and where and how these sacrifices should be made. Always throwing out the bathwater and just pretending that there is no baby. The hard thing about any political change is that change will always worsen things for some people, in some situations, there is no such thing as 100% positive change. And getting those people on board to actually make the sacrifices is the actual challenge, and in this case the author could at least bother to suggest how he/she would be willing to sacrifice to make up for these productivity losses, and/or how society will cut back on the rewards. I think we should keep the efficiency and use tech to its fullest potential, but just shorten the working hours, as a means to share the productivity gains.