4 ms·

> There's an idea that modern lives demand value in material terms. All lives demand value in caloric or reproductive terms. Economics teaches us that most comm

> There's an idea that modern lives demand value in material terms. All lives demand value in caloric or reproductive terms. Economics teaches us that most commodities are fungible. If you receive material value, this can be exchanged for caloric or reproductive value. Thus, modern (and non-modern) lives demand value in material terms. This isn't a philosophy, it's just a fact. It may tasteless to you, but most people are just trying to achieve those material terms as efficiently as possible.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
What happens when I already have all the calorific or reproductive value I need? Endlessly seeking more isn't a fact.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > What happens when I already have all the calorific or reproductive value I need? How would you even determine how much you need? You labor under the illusion that you're an intelligent being. Evolution does not care about "enough"... because there is no way to determine what "enough" is. What is enough today will not help you survive tomorrow's famine. Best stock up now. If you were so smart, you'd get that. What others call greed is subconscious anticipation of calamity.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Evolution has not solved the principal-agent problem. > What is enough today will not help you survive tomorrow's famine. Tomorrow's famine will be caused by you (read: those behaving as you describe) not knowing when enough is enough. Best preserve what we have, rather than waste it all in a frantic bid for number-goes-up.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      > Tomorrow's famine will be caused by you Possibly. Or maybe it will happen anyway. > (read: those behaving as you describe) That's mostly leftist moralizing on your part.
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        Maybe it's moralizing, but I don't think it's wrong. I'm using the same model as you, after all, only I'm applying Kantian ethics instead of unconsidered egoism. • If you wish yourself maximal reproductive fitness, then all humanity will be your descendants, and the next few centuries of all human interest is your interest. • The iterated prisoner's dilemma is a classic economic argument, by which Tragedy of the Commons-type behaviours can be averted. (Garrett Hardin's 1968 paper is a load of nonsense.) I'm not sure what would contrast my earlier "leftist moralizing", because I have absolutely no idea what a leftist is.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        > Maybe it's moralizing, but I don't think it's wrong. Religionists never think their religion is wrong. But I don't belong to your cult. > because I have absolutely no idea what a leftist is. Leftists never have any idea what a leftist is. But I don't belong to your cult.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

What happens when I already have all the calorific or reproductive value I need? Endlessly seeking more isn't a fact.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> What happens when I already have all the calorific or reproductive value I need? How would you even determine how much you need? You labor under the illusion that you're an intelligent being. Evolution does not care about "enough"... because there is no way to determine what "enough" is. What is enough today will not help you survive tomorrow's famine. Best stock up now. If you were so smart, you'd get that. What others call greed is subconscious anticipation of calamity.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Evolution has not solved the principal-agent problem. > What is enough today will not help you survive tomorrow's famine. Tomorrow's famine will be caused by you (read: those behaving as you describe) not knowing when enough is enough. Best preserve what we have, rather than waste it all in a frantic bid for number-goes-up.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > Tomorrow's famine will be caused by you Possibly. Or maybe it will happen anyway. > (read: those behaving as you describe) That's mostly leftist moralizing on your part.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      Maybe it's moralizing, but I don't think it's wrong. I'm using the same model as you, after all, only I'm applying Kantian ethics instead of unconsidered egoism. • If you wish yourself maximal reproductive fitness, then all humanity will be your descendants, and the next few centuries of all human interest is your interest. • The iterated prisoner's dilemma is a classic economic argument, by which Tragedy of the Commons-type behaviours can be averted. (Garrett Hardin's 1968 paper is a load of nonsense.) I'm not sure what would contrast my earlier "leftist moralizing", because I have absolutely no idea what a leftist is.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        > Maybe it's moralizing, but I don't think it's wrong. Religionists never think their religion is wrong. But I don't belong to your cult. > because I have absolutely no idea what a leftist is. Leftists never have any idea what a leftist is. But I don't belong to your cult.