4 ms·
So, obviously, we have no choice but for some people contribute to society. Is there a fair way to decide who has to contribute, and who is allowed to opt out a
by mquander 14y ago
So, obviously, we have no choice but for some people contribute to society. Is there a fair way to decide who has to contribute, and who is allowed to opt out and play video games all day?
Not really, but we have a way anyway, and it's called money. It's the same way we use to determine who is allowed to opt out and read all day, who is allowed to opt out and go on lots of vacations, and who is allowed to opt out and study something abstruse in college for four years.
- jmduke 14y ago> who is allowed to opt out and study something abstruse in college for four years. College is one of the last bastions of learning for the sake of learning. As programmers who often exalt creation for the sake of curation -- and discovery for the sake of discovery -- I think its better we commend that, rather than condemn it.
- mquander 14y agoI am empathetically not condemning it. I'm pointing out that if we're measuring things by "how useful are they to society at large", it's not obvious that the time spent by a lot of people in college is ahead of four years spent becoming a World of Warcraft expert. But I don't think that's a measuring stick to which we should hold up everyone's lives, which is why I have a problem with neither college graduates nor MMO players.
- jmduke 14y agoWell put.
- dromidas 14y agomquander's response took the words out of my mouth. Video games, or anything else mentioned as an alternative to video games in this article, are things you do after you take care of the other necessities of life. It was clear from the article that spawned this discussion that he was employed and simply took some time off like I did to play D3.