4 ms·

Just because humans traded doesn’t mean that “human worth was commoditized”. I’m not sure what that means, actually, but it certainly doesn’t mean voluntary tr

Just because humans traded doesn’t mean that “human worth was commoditized”. I’m not sure what that means, actually, but it certainly doesn’t mean voluntary trading of time and goods.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
There are only 24 hours in a day, and so many days in a lifetime. Everyone is always trading time, since there is a very limited amount of it. Even in a leisure situation, such as a party, people are going to make choices about how much time to interact with (or not interact with) certain people. Or spending time pontificating on HN.
- unFou 1y ago
  I wonder if your example is a different kind of trade. When we trade time in a leisure situation, we're trading something more immediate and tangible. Whereas the transactional nature of the grandparent comment is more describing something more distanced. An example of this that was told to me is imagine you're going to dinner with the in-laws (or maybe your best friend's parents). What would their reaction be if you took out your wallet and offered to pay them cash for the meal? As opposed to offering to e.g. bring a bottle of wine or helping to set the table? Offering to pay might be the "transactional" trade meant by the grandparent. While offering to contribute [food | labour | goodwill] is more of the trading time in a leisure situation.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Typically, in accounting contexts, tangible is used to refer to physical products, such as mammoth meat, or stone axes. Intangibles would be the gain or maintenance of reputation from going to have a meal at your in laws and all that jazz. Regardless, in this context, trade is trade, one entity giving up something for another. Simply spending the time to go to your in laws for a meal is a trade. And while many would not cough up cash to show the transactional nature, far more would simply not go to the dinner (or go less often) and opt to spend their time elsewhere. Or, if the in laws have something you want, maybe you opt to spend more time with them. I am not claiming one has to solely view every interaction through this lens, or should. But it is a component of most every interaction. You could strike up a conversation with a stranger with no ulterior motive and then it carries on too long and you start thinking I could spend my time better elsewhere.
scarface_74 1y ago
Human worth was literally commoditized and humans were bought and sold until the late 1800’s and legally segregated until the mid 1960’s
- bobxmax 1y ago
  Industrial-scale slavery is a post-agricultural phenomenon and represents a very small percentage of overall human development. Even such slavery, modern western/catholic chattel-style slavery aside, wasn't entirely transactional in that way. Many Ottoman slaves had better lives than aristocrats, for instance, and had real agency and influence. Western European/American/Catholic imperialist slavery was somewhat unique in how dehumanizing it was.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

Just because humans traded doesn’t mean that “human worth was commoditized”. I’m not sure what that means, actually, but it certainly doesn’t mean voluntary trading of time and goods.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

There are only 24 hours in a day, and so many days in a lifetime. Everyone is always trading time, since there is a very limited amount of it. Even in a leisure situation, such as a party, people are going to make choices about how much time to interact with (or not interact with) certain people. Or spending time pontificating on HN.

unFou 1y ago
I wonder if your example is a different kind of trade. When we trade time in a leisure situation, we're trading something more immediate and tangible. Whereas the transactional nature of the grandparent comment is more describing something more distanced. An example of this that was told to me is imagine you're going to dinner with the in-laws (or maybe your best friend's parents). What would their reaction be if you took out your wallet and offered to pay them cash for the meal? As opposed to offering to e.g. bring a bottle of wine or helping to set the table? Offering to pay might be the "transactional" trade meant by the grandparent. While offering to contribute [food | labour | goodwill] is more of the trading time in a leisure situation.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Typically, in accounting contexts, tangible is used to refer to physical products, such as mammoth meat, or stone axes. Intangibles would be the gain or maintenance of reputation from going to have a meal at your in laws and all that jazz. Regardless, in this context, trade is trade, one entity giving up something for another. Simply spending the time to go to your in laws for a meal is a trade. And while many would not cough up cash to show the transactional nature, far more would simply not go to the dinner (or go less often) and opt to spend their time elsewhere. Or, if the in laws have something you want, maybe you opt to spend more time with them. I am not claiming one has to solely view every interaction through this lens, or should. But it is a component of most every interaction. You could strike up a conversation with a stranger with no ulterior motive and then it carries on too long and you start thinking I could spend my time better elsewhere.

scarface_74 1y ago

Human worth was literally commoditized and humans were bought and sold until the late 1800’s and legally segregated until the mid 1960’s

bobxmax 1y ago
Industrial-scale slavery is a post-agricultural phenomenon and represents a very small percentage of overall human development. Even such slavery, modern western/catholic chattel-style slavery aside, wasn't entirely transactional in that way. Many Ottoman slaves had better lives than aristocrats, for instance, and had real agency and influence. Western European/American/Catholic imperialist slavery was somewhat unique in how dehumanizing it was.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]