4 ms·

I get the impulse, but why isn't this viewed as profoundly selfish?

by Zetice 4y ago

lazyasciiart 4y ago
People tend not to spend too much time analyzing impossible dreams. Most "if I won the lottery" plans are also profoundly selfish.
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Selfish how? Like not contributing to society? Do we really want to have an introspective philosophical debate about the societal impact of working for a tech company?
drakonka 4y ago
Not sure it's any more selfish than working for giant corporations for a fat paycheck. Both are selfish in their own ways, and both can also help people in their own ways. I wouldn't say there's something inherently wrong with being selfish on its own.
throwbadubadu 4y ago
> I get the impulse, but why isn't this viewed as profoundly selfish? I get that impulse, but that is like saying that most of our current jobs are reasonable and for the greater good cause? Most of the real value providing and necessary jobs are currently underpaid, while on the other spectrums end few people can reap automations fruits that actually should be shared by society, or somehow like that.. ( I know, opinionated can derail into endless discussion topic and other's may express better). Also, why isn't seen making music and art as a contribution to society while some of the current jobs are hurting society?
happysadpanda2 4y ago
Is your reasoning here that it is selfish, because not everyone can do that, and if everyone could/did, then society would collapse due to no food production, garbage collection, emergency services, law enforcement etc, as all those people would also be out painting/kayaking etc? I ask because as I first read your comment I was unable to see the selfishness, since GP outlined that they lacked the financial means to support that lifestyle (also implying that taxes would still be paid and money would flow through the system all the same). It took me writing out a reply to you, asking how you thought it selfish, before my brain came up with the potential answer I outlined in the first paragraph.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Right, my thinking here is that the dream of running away from the very society that granted you the freedom to run away seems like you're not "paying it forward" enough, to enable others to have the freedom you'd be taking advantage of. Rather, I would imagine the "not-selfish" version of this would be to spend your life doing those things, and finding ways to help others get to where you're lucky to be. I just find the "I'll get mine and fuck off" attitude to be less than ideal.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Right, my thinking here is that the dream of running away from the very society that granted you the freedom to run away seems like you're not "paying it forward" enough, to enable others to have the freedom you'd be taking advantage of. I see it completely the opposite. If someone has already made all the millions they'll ever need, it's better for society to free up that job for someone else who needs the income instead of keeping amassing more and more millions to one single person. Paying it forward here is opening up the opportunity for the next person.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      Job? I'm not sure why we're talking about a job here, I'm not suggesting you stay at your employer beyond the time it takes to become independent.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - yakubin 4y ago
    So... noone should exercise this freedom, because doing it is selfish? Then what are you paying forward for? Freedom noone should ever exercise? It feels like a prison with transparent bars.
  - TheGigaChad 4y ago
    [dead]
mywittyname 4y ago
It's freeing up a high paying job for someone else to take.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Jobs are high paying because someone thinks they provide (a lot) more value than they are paid. “Freeing up a high paying job” means someone who is worse at the job, on the margin, does it and less value is provided to everyone, aka society.
HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
a) What's wrong with being selfish? b) What about it is selfish?
sophacles 4y ago
Seriously, why don't more people work so the investors can get a chunk of their value for doing nothing? How dare they do something so utterly anti-social as spend more time doing things with people that aren't making investors money? Why must the rich investor class make-do with their own money pile when a chunk of your effort could make their pile bigger?
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  $20,000 a year income puts one in the top decile of income worldwide. At $50,000 you are richer than 98.5% of the global population. That’s less than the median American worker ($54K) or the mean ($74K). A lit more than any investor class are rich by any historical or global standard.
  - adra 4y ago
    Until you actually start equating cost of living and buying power. You may be making much more raw money than a 17th century monarch was, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if everything costs more and you aren't afforded the same liberties that they had. If you're willing to move to a rural Indian slum, you're sure to live the most regal life one can afford there, but you will lose out on a lot of the value that you get from living where and how you are today. Which is better? Shrugs, everyone has their place and I'm sure you'll find yours too.
    - barry-cotter 4y ago
      > Until you actually start equating cost of living and buying power. The picture does not change substantially if you look at measures of income adjusted for purchasing power parity. The West is far richer than the Rest and the latter much more populous. > You may be making much more raw money than a 17th century monarch was, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if everything costs more and you aren't afforded the same liberties that they had. I eat better, fresher, cleaner food than they did most of the year, have far more variety in it, have access to vastly more cultural artefacts, and I have access to modern healthcare. I’d be dead but for antibiotics. The same is probably true of one of my children. My housekeeper lost a sister to illness at 21. More than likely she’d have survived if she’d had access to even the level of care standard in Shanghai twenty years ago. Being rich is in fact better than being poor and living in a rich country better than living in a poor one for the large majority of people.
barry-cotter 4y ago
Because people are free to live their own lives. Being useful and helping others are superogatory not a matter of obligation.

I get the impulse, but why isn't this viewed as profoundly selfish?

by Zetice 4y ago

I get the impulse, but why isn't this viewed as profoundly selfish?

People tend not to spend too much time analyzing impossible dreams. Most "if I won the lottery" plans are also profoundly selfish.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Selfish how? Like not contributing to society? Do we really want to have an introspective philosophical debate about the societal impact of working for a tech company?

drakonka 4y ago

Not sure it's any more selfish than working for giant corporations for a fat paycheck. Both are selfish in their own ways, and both can also help people in their own ways. I wouldn't say there's something inherently wrong with being selfish on its own.

throwbadubadu 4y ago

> I get the impulse, but why isn't this viewed as profoundly selfish? I get that impulse, but that is like saying that most of our current jobs are reasonable and for the greater good cause? Most of the real value providing and necessary jobs are currently underpaid, while on the other spectrums end few people can reap automations fruits that actually should be shared by society, or somehow like that.. ( I know, opinionated can derail into endless discussion topic and other's may express better). Also, why isn't seen making music and art as a contribution to society while some of the current jobs are hurting society?

happysadpanda2 4y ago

Is your reasoning here that it is selfish, because not everyone can do that, and if everyone could/did, then society would collapse due to no food production, garbage collection, emergency services, law enforcement etc, as all those people would also be out painting/kayaking etc? I ask because as I first read your comment I was unable to see the selfishness, since GP outlined that they lacked the financial means to support that lifestyle (also implying that taxes would still be paid and money would flow through the system all the same). It took me writing out a reply to you, asking how you thought it selfish, before my brain came up with the potential answer I outlined in the first paragraph.

Zetice 4y ago
Right, my thinking here is that the dream of running away from the very society that granted you the freedom to run away seems like you're not "paying it forward" enough, to enable others to have the freedom you'd be taking advantage of. Rather, I would imagine the "not-selfish" version of this would be to spend your life doing those things, and finding ways to help others get to where you're lucky to be. I just find the "I'll get mine and fuck off" attitude to be less than ideal.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Right, my thinking here is that the dream of running away from the very society that granted you the freedom to run away seems like you're not "paying it forward" enough, to enable others to have the freedom you'd be taking advantage of. I see it completely the opposite. If someone has already made all the millions they'll ever need, it's better for society to free up that job for someone else who needs the income instead of keeping amassing more and more millions to one single person. Paying it forward here is opening up the opportunity for the next person.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Job? I'm not sure why we're talking about a job here, I'm not suggesting you stay at your employer beyond the time it takes to become independent.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- yakubin 4y ago
  So... noone should exercise this freedom, because doing it is selfish? Then what are you paying forward for? Freedom noone should ever exercise? It feels like a prison with transparent bars.
- TheGigaChad 4y ago
  [dead]

mywittyname 4y ago

It's freeing up a high paying job for someone else to take.

barry-cotter 4y ago
Jobs are high paying because someone thinks they provide (a lot) more value than they are paid. “Freeing up a high paying job” means someone who is worse at the job, on the margin, does it and less value is provided to everyone, aka society.

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

a) What's wrong with being selfish? b) What about it is selfish?

sophacles 4y ago

Seriously, why don't more people work so the investors can get a chunk of their value for doing nothing? How dare they do something so utterly anti-social as spend more time doing things with people that aren't making investors money? Why must the rich investor class make-do with their own money pile when a chunk of your effort could make their pile bigger?

barry-cotter 4y ago
$20,000 a year income puts one in the top decile of income worldwide. At $50,000 you are richer than 98.5% of the global population. That’s less than the median American worker ($54K) or the mean ($74K). A lit more than any investor class are rich by any historical or global standard.
- adra 4y ago
  Until you actually start equating cost of living and buying power. You may be making much more raw money than a 17th century monarch was, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if everything costs more and you aren't afforded the same liberties that they had. If you're willing to move to a rural Indian slum, you're sure to live the most regal life one can afford there, but you will lose out on a lot of the value that you get from living where and how you are today. Which is better? Shrugs, everyone has their place and I'm sure you'll find yours too.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > Until you actually start equating cost of living and buying power. The picture does not change substantially if you look at measures of income adjusted for purchasing power parity. The West is far richer than the Rest and the latter much more populous. > You may be making much more raw money than a 17th century monarch was, but that doesn't mean a hill of beans if everything costs more and you aren't afforded the same liberties that they had. I eat better, fresher, cleaner food than they did most of the year, have far more variety in it, have access to vastly more cultural artefacts, and I have access to modern healthcare. I’d be dead but for antibiotics. The same is probably true of one of my children. My housekeeper lost a sister to illness at 21. More than likely she’d have survived if she’d had access to even the level of care standard in Shanghai twenty years ago. Being rich is in fact better than being poor and living in a rich country better than living in a poor one for the large majority of people.

barry-cotter 4y ago

Because people are free to live their own lives. Being useful and helping others are superogatory not a matter of obligation.