3 ms·

I’m not sure about that. It just seems like too easy an excuse. Just to damn convenient to say, “If only the rich people...”. I fear that the reason that appli

by leobg 4y ago

I’m not sure about that. It just seems like too easy an excuse. Just to damn convenient to say, “If only the rich people...”. I fear that the reason that applies much more often is that most of our energy is being spent on doing the wrong things, or being spent on competition with others. Think of somebody building a web scraper: They are spending hours or days building something whose purpose is essentially to overcome defenses created by other people. So it’s a Red Queen thing. Both parties have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. And I believe this is happening in many areas. Marketing. Government. Compliance. Software. You name it. It’s what Hannah Arendt called work turning into labor. In other words, that which used to be the act of creating something once has turned into that which constantly needs to be repeated for the mere sake of subsistence. The better question to ask, in my opinion, is not “Who is at fault for this?“, but “ How do I, personally, avoid wasting my own energy like that?“

tboyd47 4y ago
I signed in just to upvote this, so let me ask you this, how do you avoid it?
- leobg 4y ago
  Thank you. Now I better come up with a good answer, eh? But I'm afraid I don't have a better answer than that it seems to be a constant struggle. As Feynman said, "The first rule is not to fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool". It's incredibly difficult to keep yourself on track. It's just so easy to work on bullshit. Things that never cease to blow my mind in that regard: - Asking yourself constantly, "What am I trying to achieve here?" - Disengaging from the computer, going for a walk to lying down in the hammock. Often gives you ideas that you didn't see while you were in the "tunnel vision" of execution. - If you're waiting for result of action A so you can do action B, try if you can't do action B even without action A completed. Often, you will notice that you actually can. Also, being conscious of the distinction between "labor" and "work" in Hannah Arendt's sense is helpful: She defines "labor" as anything that is a recurring drain on your time and energy, and necessary to your survival. So, in a sense, it's the equivalent to a business' overhead. Eating food, mowing the lawn - these are all things that you have to do over and over again just to keep "afloat". These are also the things which do not change the future. One month from now, it just won't make much of a difference whether you mowed your lawn today or not. In contrast, "work" in Arendt's sense is anything where you create something that did not exist before. Something that has a value in and of itself. And which, once created, will continue to exist, and will continue to add value to the future, even if you did drop dead right now. Writing a piece of software that people use. Building a lawn mowing robot. And, not to forget, teaching your kids and being a good role model to them. These are all examples of "work". This is not to say that, when demands of "work" and "labor" collide, you should always choose the work over the labor. But you should be conscious of the difference, and take that into account when you choose what activity is going to have the greatest value to you. This is the "keeping yourself on track" part, and the "not wasting your energy on things that do not need to get done". The other part is the Red Queen / arms race thing. And I think one thing that might be important and useful here is to try to avoid competition (duh!). Or, at least, to be very strategic about when to engage in competition and when not to. Picking your battles, so to speak, as opposed to fighting any battle that presents itself. I mean, one way some people get out of the rat race is to let others compete against each other. Amazon is doing that with its marketplace sellers. So not allowing yourself to become an Amazon marketplace seller would probably be a good idea. There are always these areas that are "en vogue", where there's a community about it, podcasts about it, etc.. I tend to see those things as red flags. Because if there are people there already "selling shovels", you know that the space is over-crowded. Much better to go some place no one seems to be talking about. Or even a place which, if you talk about it, people will think you're an idiot. In investing they say, "Buy on fear, sell on greed". The same, I think, applies to choosing where to "invest" your time and energy. Any place that people avoid, do not see, or even fear likely is a much better choice. Although, just as in investing, the price you pay for the freedom from competition is uncertainty, a lack of approval from others, and not being taken seriously. Though one can slowly learn to recognize these symptoms as a sign that the path you've chosen is a good one in terms of being free from hype and competition. That's not a guarantee that it will work out for you, of course. But you're at least playing according to your own rules now. I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
  - tboyd47 4y ago
    It's the power of money that demands that we turn our efforts -- and therefore, ourselves -- into commodities. When money becomes a force in and of itself (separate from the people wielding it) then it begins to mold society in its own image: cold, liquid, and homogenous. Competition isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but when we allow money complete control over our lives, we strive in ways that benefit people farther and farther removed from us, and therefore, become more alienated.
Havoc 4y ago
>“Who is at fault for this?“ >“If only the rich people...” My comment wasn't really aimed at allocating any sort of blame or implying the rich should fix it. >most of our energy is being spent on doing the wrong things, or being spent on competition with others. Is it though? The fact that total wealth is increasing overall to me suggests it is an allocation issue rather than >Both parties have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. That def is true for some areas, but not in aggregate I think. Though frankly total wealth generated seems a little sus to me as well. How much of that is on paper?

by leobg 4y ago

tboyd47 4y ago

I signed in just to upvote this, so let me ask you this, how do you avoid it?

leobg 4y ago
Thank you. Now I better come up with a good answer, eh? But I'm afraid I don't have a better answer than that it seems to be a constant struggle. As Feynman said, "The first rule is not to fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool". It's incredibly difficult to keep yourself on track. It's just so easy to work on bullshit. Things that never cease to blow my mind in that regard: - Asking yourself constantly, "What am I trying to achieve here?" - Disengaging from the computer, going for a walk to lying down in the hammock. Often gives you ideas that you didn't see while you were in the "tunnel vision" of execution. - If you're waiting for result of action A so you can do action B, try if you can't do action B even without action A completed. Often, you will notice that you actually can. Also, being conscious of the distinction between "labor" and "work" in Hannah Arendt's sense is helpful: She defines "labor" as anything that is a recurring drain on your time and energy, and necessary to your survival. So, in a sense, it's the equivalent to a business' overhead. Eating food, mowing the lawn - these are all things that you have to do over and over again just to keep "afloat". These are also the things which do not change the future. One month from now, it just won't make much of a difference whether you mowed your lawn today or not. In contrast, "work" in Arendt's sense is anything where you create something that did not exist before. Something that has a value in and of itself. And which, once created, will continue to exist, and will continue to add value to the future, even if you did drop dead right now. Writing a piece of software that people use. Building a lawn mowing robot. And, not to forget, teaching your kids and being a good role model to them. These are all examples of "work". This is not to say that, when demands of "work" and "labor" collide, you should always choose the work over the labor. But you should be conscious of the difference, and take that into account when you choose what activity is going to have the greatest value to you. This is the "keeping yourself on track" part, and the "not wasting your energy on things that do not need to get done". The other part is the Red Queen / arms race thing. And I think one thing that might be important and useful here is to try to avoid competition (duh!). Or, at least, to be very strategic about when to engage in competition and when not to. Picking your battles, so to speak, as opposed to fighting any battle that presents itself. I mean, one way some people get out of the rat race is to let others compete against each other. Amazon is doing that with its marketplace sellers. So not allowing yourself to become an Amazon marketplace seller would probably be a good idea. There are always these areas that are "en vogue", where there's a community about it, podcasts about it, etc.. I tend to see those things as red flags. Because if there are people there already "selling shovels", you know that the space is over-crowded. Much better to go some place no one seems to be talking about. Or even a place which, if you talk about it, people will think you're an idiot. In investing they say, "Buy on fear, sell on greed". The same, I think, applies to choosing where to "invest" your time and energy. Any place that people avoid, do not see, or even fear likely is a much better choice. Although, just as in investing, the price you pay for the freedom from competition is uncertainty, a lack of approval from others, and not being taken seriously. Though one can slowly learn to recognize these symptoms as a sign that the path you've chosen is a good one in terms of being free from hype and competition. That's not a guarantee that it will work out for you, of course. But you're at least playing according to your own rules now. I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
- tboyd47 4y ago
  It's the power of money that demands that we turn our efforts -- and therefore, ourselves -- into commodities. When money becomes a force in and of itself (separate from the people wielding it) then it begins to mold society in its own image: cold, liquid, and homogenous. Competition isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but when we allow money complete control over our lives, we strive in ways that benefit people farther and farther removed from us, and therefore, become more alienated.

Havoc 4y ago

>“Who is at fault for this?“ >“If only the rich people...” My comment wasn't really aimed at allocating any sort of blame or implying the rich should fix it. >most of our energy is being spent on doing the wrong things, or being spent on competition with others. Is it though? The fact that total wealth is increasing overall to me suggests it is an allocation issue rather than >Both parties have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. That def is true for some areas, but not in aggregate I think. Though frankly total wealth generated seems a little sus to me as well. How much of that is on paper?