> Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. That's begging the quest

> Again, the monks believe they live rich lives without being "useful" by North American standards, that's certainly a cultural thing. That's begging the question. Historically, nearly all societies valued work because work was necessary; they valued being "useful". Historically, nearly all societies also specialized, moving some folks away from directly producing/ harvesting food and to other jobs like building tools; they also produced art, philosophy, religion, and other things which don't appear to be "useful" but _empirically are_. > Look at what value we place on people who are homeless, addicts, crippled, blind, deaf, or hell, even someone who is just unemployed. > We look down on them heavily. We judge them as having lower value because they are less useful. No. WTF, no. Most people who are "unemployed" _were_ employed and _will soon be_ employed. Most people who are homeless had a home and will soon have a home. These are usually short term circumstances. The folks who are long-term unemployed or long-term homeless are a completely different category: lots of substance abuse, mental issues they refuse to treat, refusal to adhere to basic societal norms, etc. But if someone improves themselves, wow, do folks love a comeback story. I think that's almost universal across societies, but I'm happy to see evidence otherwise. As for physically handicapped folks, plenty of them work for money. Some of them can't _but they want to_. And they find other ways to be useful to their families, their community, their society. I don't see disdain for that. But that one is definitely cultural. Historically, most societies would "put them out of their misery". Still true in Canada. > Even look at the original comment and the disdain for "useless lumps" > This attitude doesn't exist everywhere. Generally, yes, it does. See everything above.