5 ms·

I could not possibly disagree with this sort of "everybody has to work" view more; I think it's the primary problem with our current society if you could boil i

by jrm4 4y ago

I could not possibly disagree with this sort of "everybody has to work" view more; I think it's the primary problem with our current society if you could boil it down to that. Thorstein Veblen said it better than I ever could. More precisely, I suppose, it's not the factual content that I have a problem with. It's technically true, but it also doesn't need to be said. It's like telling a human to keep breathing. So instead, it serves the purpose of contributing to a society that values "sacrificial work" too much.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
So who gets to decide who has to do the necessary work for society to function and who gets to sit around and do nothing except benefit from their work? Do you have an equitable way to solve this issue? Or maybe people who don't do strictly necessary work still need to do something. And maybe you consider that "sacrificial", I consider it "contributing"
- jrm4 4y ago
  I do, because it's not actually that big of an issue. The correct answer here is "localism." What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to. Just ensure that small groups are able to figure it out for themselves. The real harm isn't the imaginary laziness you fear here.. It's scaled political power that allows groups to exploit others.
  - epups 4y ago
    That makes no sense. Most stuff you consume is not produced locally. And even then, why would I want to be a local firefighter or whatever if some other people get to sit on their ass every day?
  - xmprt 4y ago
    How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function? You're suggestion is essentially to go back to the stone age. Additionally, wouldn't localism require more people to do things that they don't enjoy? For example, I'm not a fan of farming and I don't think many of my neighbors are either but fortunately, we're all able to eat pretty much any dish we like because of the food shipped from distant farms every day. > What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to This sounds a lot like a non-answer. Perhaps I would understand what you're talking about better if you explained how you believe it would work in your town where you do have more context.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      > How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function Forget all that tech. "Localism" couldn't even produce a single 2B pencil, which is such a trivial thing when we consider the scale of society as it is today. I was honestly hoping there was going to be a better answer than this handwavy nonsense.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      See, all of you disagreeing with me are doing the thing where you're pretending to be top down benevolent dictator (or better yet, playing a game of SimCity.) I'm not. I am suggesting that if you took the world as it exists today, and strongly turned down the volume on "everybody has to work," the world would improve, and that labor at the end of a pointy stick is not necessary to keep things going, and generally makes things worse. Yes, the mix of goods and services could perhaps drastically change. E.g. if you love throwing away your 3 year old iPhone for a new one, I'm sorry, you will suffer; you'd probably have to deal with repaired phones with interchangeable parts. I think that's probably a better place.
      - cercatrova 4y ago
        That may drastically slow down human progress in terms of technology. If one posits that we have a moral obligation to future humans to make sure their lives are ones with lower suffering, and if technology, especially medical technology, will take us there, then your idea essentially says that it is immoral to slow down human progress, because more people will suffer. That's how I see it anyway. I'm a techno-optimist, given the nature of technology in our species' development.
        8note 4y ago
        How are you measuring suffering over time? does keeping somebody alive in extreme pain raise or lower it? Its quite notable that modern medics has made its fair share of opium addicts. I don't know whether that's a feather in the modern cap or not
        4y ago
  - yibg 4y ago
    Where would a small group of people get their electricity or medicines? What if none of the small groups of people wants to develop medicines? This isn't a solution, it's just handwaving things away.

by jrm4 4y ago

bluefirebrand 4y ago

So who gets to decide who has to do the necessary work for society to function and who gets to sit around and do nothing except benefit from their work? Do you have an equitable way to solve this issue? Or maybe people who don't do strictly necessary work still need to do something. And maybe you consider that "sacrificial", I consider it "contributing"

jrm4 4y ago
I do, because it's not actually that big of an issue. The correct answer here is "localism." What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to. Just ensure that small groups are able to figure it out for themselves. The real harm isn't the imaginary laziness you fear here.. It's scaled political power that allows groups to exploit others.
- epups 4y ago
  That makes no sense. Most stuff you consume is not produced locally. And even then, why would I want to be a local firefighter or whatever if some other people get to sit on their ass every day?
- xmprt 4y ago
  How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function? You're suggestion is essentially to go back to the stone age. Additionally, wouldn't localism require more people to do things that they don't enjoy? For example, I'm not a fan of farming and I don't think many of my neighbors are either but fortunately, we're all able to eat pretty much any dish we like because of the food shipped from distant farms every day. > What would it look like in your town? I don't know, but I don't need to This sounds a lot like a non-answer. Perhaps I would understand what you're talking about better if you explained how you believe it would work in your town where you do have more context.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    > How is localism supposed to enable things like mobile phones, internet, video games, movies, travel, etc., function Forget all that tech. "Localism" couldn't even produce a single 2B pencil, which is such a trivial thing when we consider the scale of society as it is today. I was honestly hoping there was going to be a better answer than this handwavy nonsense.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    See, all of you disagreeing with me are doing the thing where you're pretending to be top down benevolent dictator (or better yet, playing a game of SimCity.) I'm not. I am suggesting that if you took the world as it exists today, and strongly turned down the volume on "everybody has to work," the world would improve, and that labor at the end of a pointy stick is not necessary to keep things going, and generally makes things worse. Yes, the mix of goods and services could perhaps drastically change. E.g. if you love throwing away your 3 year old iPhone for a new one, I'm sorry, you will suffer; you'd probably have to deal with repaired phones with interchangeable parts. I think that's probably a better place.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      That may drastically slow down human progress in terms of technology. If one posits that we have a moral obligation to future humans to make sure their lives are ones with lower suffering, and if technology, especially medical technology, will take us there, then your idea essentially says that it is immoral to slow down human progress, because more people will suffer. That's how I see it anyway. I'm a techno-optimist, given the nature of technology in our species' development.
      - 8note 4y ago
        How are you measuring suffering over time? does keeping somebody alive in extreme pain raise or lower it? Its quite notable that modern medics has made its fair share of opium addicts. I don't know whether that's a feather in the modern cap or not
      - 4y ago
- yibg 4y ago
  Where would a small group of people get their electricity or medicines? What if none of the small groups of people wants to develop medicines? This isn't a solution, it's just handwaving things away.