4 ms·

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 i

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.

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.