3 ms·

I agree with the overall sentiment, however the main point I think is short-sighted. Work is inescapable, a requirement of life. Denying this leads to a poor qu

by proc0 3y ago

I agree with the overall sentiment, however the main point I think is short-sighted. Work is inescapable, a requirement of life. Denying this leads to a poor quality of life at the societal level. Put simply, work is the effort to lower entropy. Cleaning is lowering the entropy of a relatively high entropy environment which is dirty and disorderly. Cooking is needed to eat, which is a way to acquire energy for our bodies to maintain their low entropy state of being alive. Virtually every type of work is a way to fight high entropy and basically survive. No matter where you are or where you go, work is needed. If you live off-grid in the woods, you need to hunt and survive somehow, in which case arguably work is much harder than in the middle of civilization. It is hard to find meaning from tasks that have no direct connection to this overall reduction in entropy. I see it as a trade-off. You get civilization at your fingertips i.e. food delivery, the entire knowledgebase of humanity with the Internet, amazing entertainment from movies to VR, etc. and in exchange you have to cope with being a tiny, insignificant part of the machine.

mid-kid 3y ago
In my opinion, there's a huge difference between working for personal interests (what you call "reducing entropy"), and working for the sake of money, causing it to dictate your activities. Even if you do the same "work", both circumstances can will feel wildly different, provide different value to society, and change the fraction of this "tiny, insignificant part of the machine" that you represent. I'd argue that both kinds of "work" can function independently, and neither of them is a "requirement of life" provided the other option is available.
- namaria 3y ago
  Saying all work is "reducing entropy" is about as useful as saying all writing is just ordering letters or all maths is about counting. Anyone who can't see the difference between preparing a nice meal for oneself and flipping burgers has no business dissecting the sociology of work.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - proc0 3y ago
    I admit it is reductionist but it's also true. Even in your example, not many are preparing a nice meal for themselves from scratch. Even farmers who would have the cows to slaughter and the vegetables to harvest still need to buy their spices, grill, the gas or charcoal for the grill, etc. So even these nice tasks are dependent on the rest of civilization to do their part of the collective work. Many jobs are a bad experience, but comparing it to nice activities is just focusing on the fruits of this same labor done by someone else. Some people get lucky but even in a perfectly fair system, work is needed, things need to be fixed, cleaned, prepared etc.
- proc0 3y ago
  Fair point, there is a difference between types of work. My perspective is that the vast majority of it is not only undesirable by nature but also necessary. Even fulfilling jobs are still work and most people would rather just have more free time. As far as the miserable jobs, these exist because of the success of civilization in the sense that we can exchange labor and have access to everyone else's labor, which creates the higher standard of living for everyone involved. There is still the issue of inequality but the point is even in the most fair of systems, work still needs to be done.

by proc0 3y ago

mid-kid 3y ago

In my opinion, there's a huge difference between working for personal interests (what you call "reducing entropy"), and working for the sake of money, causing it to dictate your activities. Even if you do the same "work", both circumstances can will feel wildly different, provide different value to society, and change the fraction of this "tiny, insignificant part of the machine" that you represent. I'd argue that both kinds of "work" can function independently, and neither of them is a "requirement of life" provided the other option is available.

namaria 3y ago
Saying all work is "reducing entropy" is about as useful as saying all writing is just ordering letters or all maths is about counting. Anyone who can't see the difference between preparing a nice meal for oneself and flipping burgers has no business dissecting the sociology of work.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- proc0 3y ago
  I admit it is reductionist but it's also true. Even in your example, not many are preparing a nice meal for themselves from scratch. Even farmers who would have the cows to slaughter and the vegetables to harvest still need to buy their spices, grill, the gas or charcoal for the grill, etc. So even these nice tasks are dependent on the rest of civilization to do their part of the collective work. Many jobs are a bad experience, but comparing it to nice activities is just focusing on the fruits of this same labor done by someone else. Some people get lucky but even in a perfectly fair system, work is needed, things need to be fixed, cleaned, prepared etc.
proc0 3y ago
Fair point, there is a difference between types of work. My perspective is that the vast majority of it is not only undesirable by nature but also necessary. Even fulfilling jobs are still work and most people would rather just have more free time. As far as the miserable jobs, these exist because of the success of civilization in the sense that we can exchange labor and have access to everyone else's labor, which creates the higher standard of living for everyone involved. There is still the issue of inequality but the point is even in the most fair of systems, work still needs to be done.