4 ms·

In the first case no, in the second yes. Great that you reduced the need to work. You are a hero to society. Not great to use that as a reason to control oth

In the first case no, in the second yes. Great that you reduced the need to work. You are a hero to society. Not great to use that as a reason to control others.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jedberg 3y ago
How am I controlling others? They are willingly turning the crank. They still get 8 widgets and they do less work than if they built the widgets themselves. Everyone is doing better in this scenario than when I was building the widgets alone.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Sure, everyone [1] is better off, but that just sets the bar too low. You and the other guy each turn the crank for four hours, that is the fair outcome. If you insist, you get a couple of extra widgets for inventing and building the machine. You spend a week building the machine, time worth 40 widgets, but you want - ignoring your finite lifetime - infinite compensation for that, free widgets forever for a 40 widget investment. [1] A bit nitpicking, in the exact case you presented, the other guy might not actually be notably better off. Instead of manually making eight widgets for himself - assuming he is as skilled as you - per day, he now spends four hours making his widgets and then four more hours making your widgets. This can of course easily be tuned to actually make him better of or that might already be the case if turning the crank also improves the working conditions over the manual process.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    Wouldn't my time be better spent inventing more widget making machines to improve the lives of everyone around me? Why is both of us turning the crank for four hours the ideal and fair outcome?
    - lex-lightning 3y ago
      Are you better at inventing than the worker is? Are your subsequent inventions better than the art they create? Do we really need double the widgets? I mean, the top post on this site yesterday was a self-balancing cube someone invented. This is precisely the community that should understand that inventions for inventions’ sake aren’t necessarily improving anything.
      - jedberg 3y ago
        > Are you better at inventing than the worker is? It would seem so, since I made one and they didn't. > Are your subsequent inventions better than the art they create? Not sure what art has to do with it. If they want to make art they can get a job making art instead of turning the crank. > Do we really need double the widgets? The market will decide that. If we don't then no one would buy them and it would no longer make sense to produce so many. > I mean, the top post on this site yesterday was a self-balancing cube someone invented. This is precisely the community that should understand that inventions for inventions’ sake aren’t necessarily improving anything. Interesting you should bring that up. That cube improved our understanding of self balancing machines and how to build them. That understanding can lead to better self balancing things, like maybe walkers for the disabled. You never know what it might lead to until you make it. Even machines that "have no purpose" have a purpose, of showing us what does not work or what does not make sense.
        lex-lightning 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - danbruc 3y ago
      What then is a more fair outcome in your original scenario where producing widgets was the only activity? If you keep working, making other inventions, that is a completely different scenario. That you should do your share of crank turning only applies to the scenario where turning the crank is the only work that needs to be done.

In the first case no, in the second yes. Great that you reduced the need to work. You are a hero to society. Not great to use that as a reason to control others.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jedberg 3y ago

How am I controlling others? They are willingly turning the crank. They still get 8 widgets and they do less work than if they built the widgets themselves. Everyone is doing better in this scenario than when I was building the widgets alone.

danbruc 3y ago
Sure, everyone [1] is better off, but that just sets the bar too low. You and the other guy each turn the crank for four hours, that is the fair outcome. If you insist, you get a couple of extra widgets for inventing and building the machine. You spend a week building the machine, time worth 40 widgets, but you want - ignoring your finite lifetime - infinite compensation for that, free widgets forever for a 40 widget investment. [1] A bit nitpicking, in the exact case you presented, the other guy might not actually be notably better off. Instead of manually making eight widgets for himself - assuming he is as skilled as you - per day, he now spends four hours making his widgets and then four more hours making your widgets. This can of course easily be tuned to actually make him better of or that might already be the case if turning the crank also improves the working conditions over the manual process.
- jedberg 3y ago
  Wouldn't my time be better spent inventing more widget making machines to improve the lives of everyone around me? Why is both of us turning the crank for four hours the ideal and fair outcome?
  - lex-lightning 3y ago
    Are you better at inventing than the worker is? Are your subsequent inventions better than the art they create? Do we really need double the widgets? I mean, the top post on this site yesterday was a self-balancing cube someone invented. This is precisely the community that should understand that inventions for inventions’ sake aren’t necessarily improving anything.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      > Are you better at inventing than the worker is? It would seem so, since I made one and they didn't. > Are your subsequent inventions better than the art they create? Not sure what art has to do with it. If they want to make art they can get a job making art instead of turning the crank. > Do we really need double the widgets? The market will decide that. If we don't then no one would buy them and it would no longer make sense to produce so many. > I mean, the top post on this site yesterday was a self-balancing cube someone invented. This is precisely the community that should understand that inventions for inventions’ sake aren’t necessarily improving anything. Interesting you should bring that up. That cube improved our understanding of self balancing machines and how to build them. That understanding can lead to better self balancing things, like maybe walkers for the disabled. You never know what it might lead to until you make it. Even machines that "have no purpose" have a purpose, of showing us what does not work or what does not make sense.
      - lex-lightning 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - danbruc 3y ago
    What then is a more fair outcome in your original scenario where producing widgets was the only activity? If you keep working, making other inventions, that is a completely different scenario. That you should do your share of crank turning only applies to the scenario where turning the crank is the only work that needs to be done.